Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (TEACHERS)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the forthcoming revision of basic salaries of the teachers of Malta, consideration is to be given to long-standing anomalies, particularly to the wide differences which exist between the salaries paid to teachers and other classes of public servants.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I understand that the final report of the Malta Salaries Revision Committee, which I am still awaiting, will recommend a new system of salary scales designed to eliminate anomalies in the present salary structure; and I have no doubt that the committee will prove to have given careful consideration to the position of teachers in relation to that of other Government servants.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the proposed scales will discriminate against teachers even now, and will he not intervene to see that the children of this very gallant island are taught by the best teachers who can be attracted to the service?

Mr. Creech Jones: I must receive the report before I can pass judgment on it.

Mrs. Manning: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the low salaries paid to the teachers of Malta, long-service increments will be paid to teachers who have spent a lifetime in the service of child education, so as to enable them to obtain the new maximum

salaries and so retire upon a reasonable pension.

Mr. Creech Jones: As a result of the introduction of the long grade system in 1943, teachers in Malta Government Service can now reach their maximum after 13 years service. In these circumstances, I do not think that any special arrangement with regard to long-service increments is called for.

Mrs. Manning: Does, my right hon. Friend not think that, in the new scales of salaries now coming into force, something can be done for teachers who have not benefited by them in the past, but who, nevertheless, have worked long and loyally for the Maltese children?

Mr. Creech Jones: This is largely a problem for Malta itself, but I will look into it.

Mrs. Manning: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Malta Union of Teachers is denied all representation on the local Board of Education; and if he will intervene to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. Creech Jones: There is no bar to the appointment of a member of the Malta Union of Teachers to the Malta Board of Education whose numbers are fixed by local legislation. When a vacancy next occurs, the Governor will consider members of the union for the appointment.

Mrs. Manning: Is the Minister aware that my friends in Malta will be grateful for his promise, and will he endeavour, when the vacancy occurs, to see that his promise is carried into effect?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Food Subsidies

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which colonial Governments are still providing food subsidies in order to prevent further rises in the cost of living; and what sums are set aside from taxation for this purpose.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the Answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say what the future policy of his Department regarding subsidies in the Colonies is going to be?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is under consideration now.

Following is the answer:

The following Colonies subsidise foodstuffs from ordinary local revenue to the extent shown:

Colony and estimated expenditure on subsidisation for the financial year 1947 or 5947–48.





£


Kenya
…
…
100,000



Tanganyika
…
…
20,000



Zanzibar
…
…
10,000



Northern Rhodesia
…
…
92,000



Malayan Union
…
…
2,700,000



Singapore
…
…
817,000



Mauritius
…
…
300,000



Malta
…
…
620,000
(a)


Palestine
…
…
2,500,000
(b)


Cyprus
…
…
650,000
(a)


St. Helena
…
…
10,000
(a)


Trinidad
…
…
306,000
(b)


Jamaica
…
…
231,000
(a) (b


British Honduras
…
…
23,000
(a)


British Guiana
…
…
250,000



Barbados
…
…
55,000
(c)


Fiji
…
…
96,000

The following Colonies subsidise foodstuffs from sources other than ordinary local revenue. e.g., commodity marketing funds:

Aden.
Seychelles.
Leeward Islands (d).
Windward Islands (d).

In a few of the above cases it has not been possible to exclude the cost of subsidies to certain commodities other than food.
Footnotes.

(a) These territories receive certain assistance from United Kingdom funds.
(b) Estimates for the financial year 1946 or 1946–47.
(c) Estimates for the period April—June, 1947, when the position will be reviewed.
(d) The position regarding food subsidies and the means of financing them is under review

Civil Aircraft Routes

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether consideration is being given to regulating the flights of individual aircraft over Colonial territories which are deficient in landing facilities, with a view to minimising expensive and inconvenient searches for aircraft which make forced landings in uninhabited areas.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. All Colonial Governments have been asked to indicate whether they would wish, under the terms of Article 5 of the Convention

on International Civil Aviation concluded at Chicago in 1944, to exercise the right to prescribe routes to be followed by civil aircraft in their territories.

Transfer of Sovereignty

Wing-Commander Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has sent to the House of Assembly in Bermuda in answer to the request of that House that he should confirm that His Majesty's Government does not propose to offer the Colony to the U.S.A.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Governor of Bermuda was authorised on 7th March to state that His Majesty's Government do not contemplate any transfer of the sovereignty of the British Colonies and Dependencies in the Western Hemisphere. Subsequently, the Bermuda House of Assembly asked for confirmation that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have not the right to transfer the sovereignty of a British Colony unless the subjects of that Colony request it. The Governor has been asked to inform the House, in reply, that the cession of a Colony to a foreign Power would be a matter of the Royal prerogative, but that any instrument of cession would require the sanction of an Act of Parliament. In stating that a transfer of sovereignty by this means would be valid in law, the Governor has been asked to add that His Majesty's Government feel justified in stating that they regard it as inconceivable that any Government of this country would be willing to agree to any such transfer without the consent of the inhabitants of the Colony.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend see that this answer receives publicity in Bermuda because of the fact that it is now generally believed that we intend to cede some parts of Bermuda to meet the American Loan? Only this week, I have read statements about it in the American Press.

Mr. Creech Jones: We will give it publicity, because some disturbing statements have been made.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman also see that it is given publicity among certain sections of his own party?

Economic and Development Council

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Colonial Economic and Development Council was set up; how often it has met since that time; and if it is proposed to publish periodical reports of its activities.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Colonial Economic and Development Council was set up in September, 1946, and has held 14 meetings. It exists to advise the Secretary of State, and some reference to its activities will be included in the annual reports presented to the House by the Colonial Office.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the great importance of this council, is it not desirable that it should publish its own reports, so that the House and the country can have some knowledge of what it is doing and recommending?

Mr. Creech Jones: The council has been set up to advise the Secretary of State, and in the annual report—which will become, a regular feature—submitted to this House, some section will deal with the deliberations and recommendations of the council.

Broadcasts (Languages)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will issue in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the principal languages, other than English, understood in the Colonies and Trust Territories, showing the estimated number of persons understanding each language, the languages in which the B. B. C. broadcasts and the estimated number of persons respectively within and outside the Colonies, etc., who listen to such broadcasts.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. The statement will be issued as soon as the information can be assembled in the form required. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the last part of his Question especially covers a very wide field, and that in any reply to it there must be a large element of conjecture.

Broadcasting Service (Salaries)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will decide not to implement the recommendation in the Harragin Report that, while

wireless engineers and other engineers in the Posts and Telegraphs Department are to receive salary Scale A, broadcast officers are to receive Scale C, which carries £280 per annum less basic salary at the maximum, and £50 per annum less overseas pay, as the conditions of their appointment specified that they should be properly trained radio communication engineers with at least two years of varied practical experience.

Mr. Creech Jones: The recommendation to grade broadcasting officers on Scale C has already been adopted. The question whether they should be placed on Scale A was carefully considered, but in view of the fact that the holders are not required to possess qualifications equivalent to those required for appointment to the Colonial Engineering Service, it was decided that the Commission had correctly graded these posts on Scale C. On promotion to the rank of senior broadcasting officer, these officers enter Scale B, which carries a maximum only £100 less than that of wireless engineers in the Posts and Telegraphs Department.

Mr. Skinnard: In view of the tremendous importance that broadcasting will play in mass education and other developments in the Colonies, and also in view of the fact that some of the officers now on this lower scale were seconded to the broadcasting service from the Posts and Telegraphs Department because of their special knowledge, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position with regard to those who have equal qualifications with Posts and Telegraphs officers?

Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly, but I was under the impression that all these difficulties had been cleared up.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Air Services

Wing-Commander Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement in regard to the development of air services in the West Indies.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am in consultation with my noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation about the integration of the services operated and projected by the British South American Airways Corporation in the West Indies with those operated


and projected in the area by the various Colonial airlines. The recent Colonial Civil Aviation Conference in London afforded an opportunity for some useful discussions on this matter, and the chairman of British West Indian Airways is expected in London shortly for discussions about this company.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he can make a more complete statement on this matter?

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not know how soon, but if another Question is put down in about a month's time, I hope to be able to make a statement then.

Mr. Gammans: Is the Minister aware that, while these long deliberations are going on, the French and Dutch are coming in and starting air lines to British territories?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.

Agricultural Workers (Bank Accounts)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the arrangements for the repayment to Jamaican agricultural labourers on their return from the U.S.A. of money paid into their accounts in the Agricultural Workers' Branch of the Government Savings Bank.

Mr. Creech Jones: In accordance with the contract into which each worker enters with the United States Government, 25 per cent. of his earnings is deducted at the source and paid to his account at the Agricultural Workers' Branch of the Government Savings Bank in Jamaica. While he is in the United States, monthly payments not exceeding £3 are made to his dependants from this amount. On his return, the balance is paid to him on the production of satisfactory evidence of identity.

Commander Noble: Could the Secretary of State say whether these men on their return from America are able to obtain a full written statement of their accounts?

Mr. Creech Jones: I should want notice of that question. I think there has been some little difficulty up to now because of delays, but we are trying to speed matters up.

Mr. Gammans: Are they allowed to keep their dollars, or are they forcibly converted to sterling?

Dominica (Exports)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the case of the Colony of Dominica, and with special reference to lime juice, cocoa and cocoanuts, he will make a further statement in regard to the products of certain Colonies which were exported to the exclusive order of various Government departments in the United Kingdom who also fixed the price to he paid for such products.

Mr. Creech Jones: None of these products is exported to the exclusive order of a Government department. Lime juice is exported by producers in Dominica to their agents in this country, import licences being issued by the Ministry of Food on a quota system. Dominica can and does export lime juice elsewhere. The price is fixed by the Minister of Food in consultation with the Government of the Windward Islands and myself. All Dominica cocoa is at present being bought by the United States according to the allocation arrangements of the International Emergency Food Council. Coconuts are not being imported into this country from Dominica.

Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the growers in Dominica are not being prejudiced by the price fixed by the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Creech Jones: I believe that is the case, but I would like to look into the matter further.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the position in regard to the export of limes from the Colony of Dominica; why the volume of export has fallen since 1921; whether the Colony is free to export limes to the U.S. at world prices; and what is the difference between the world price and the price fixed for limes exported to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Creech Jones: The serious decline in the Dominica lime industry after 1920 was due partly to hurricane damage and the inroads of plant diseases, but also to the development of cheaper sources of citric acid. Since 1934 there has been a partial recovery, principally owing to the increased value of juice and distilled oil


exported. The years 1944 and 1945 were the best since 1920. The export of fresh limes remains small. The Colony is free to export lime products where it wishes. No price is fixed for limes exported to the U.K.

Oil Output and Exports (Trinidad)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total output of Trinidad oil; what proportion is imported into this country and into Canada, respectively; and at what rate Trinidad oil imported into Canada enjoys preference.

Mr. Creech Jones: The total production of crude oil in Trinidad in the year 1946 amounted to 2,890,000 tons. For the same year, imports of Trinidad oil products of all types into the United Kingdom totalled 965,000 tons; imports into Canada totalled 25,000 tons. Trinidad oil is imported into Canada at a preference rate varying from a third of a cent to three-quarters of a cent per gallon, according to the type of petroleum product.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Has there been any alteration in that preference to Canada?

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not think so.

Jamaica Bananas (Shipping)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered representations from the Jamaica Banana Producers' Association for shipping for the export of the banana crop; and with what result.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. I have considered representations from the Jamaica Banana Producers' Association and am laying certain proposals before the Governor of Jamaica.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does that increase the imports now?

Mr. Creech Jones: No. It is a problem of shipping; the volume of exports does not arise.

Mr. Skinnard: Is it intended to enable the Jamaica banana producers to maintain their own shipping line, as in the past?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is one of the points which the Governor is asking the producers to consider.

Government Appointment, Trinidad (Protest)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply was given by the Government of Trinidad to the protest of the Trinidad and Tobago Trades Union Council against the decision to appoint a South African to the post of superintendent of survey-training in the Civil Service.

Mr. Creech Jones: The suggestion made by the Trades Union Council was that the appointment of this officer, who has the necessary qualifications and experience for the post, should be cancelled solely on the ground of his South African origin. I could not agree to any such principle being followed, and the council were accordingly informed that I was unable to accede to their representations.

Mr. Skinnard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will give great satisfaction to those in Trinidad itself who wish to have the best possible people appointed to these technical positions?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

British Somaliland

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to reassume responsibility for the administration of Somaliland.

Mr. Creech Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and I recently agreed that the time had not yet come for the Colonial Office to resume responsibility for British Somaliland. The matter is, however, being kept under constant review by the two Departments.

Colonel Wheatley: Can the Secretary of State say whether he has any plans for the future of this very difficult country?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. There has been a considerable amount of thought given to the future development and governmental planning of Somaliland.

Cocoa (Produce Board's Surplus)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is his estimate of the surplus funds of the West African Produce Board at the end of this season; and whether he intends to increase the


price paid to African producers of cocoa or to reduce the price charged to manufacturers.

Mr. Creech Jones: I estimate that the surplus funds which will accrue from the current crop are likely to exceed £10,000,000. The producers' price is fixed for the present season, which will shortly be completed. The determination of next season's producer price will be a matter for the new cocoa boards in West Africa. The price charged by the board to buyers of British West Africa cocoas is determined in the free market.

Mr. Keeling: The first part of my Question was not intended to ask about the surplus of this season's working, but what the total surplus would be at the end of the season. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us that figure?

Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot be too accurate, but I imagine that it will be in the neighbourhood of, probably, £22 million.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposes to do with that £22 million?

Mr. Erroll: In view of this large surplus, can the Minister say why the price has been put up to home manufacturers?

Mr. Creech Jones: That, surely, is a matter for the Ministry of Food.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think that this House is entitled to know what the Government propose to do with this huge surplus which has been obtained at the cost of either the producers or the consumers.

Mr. Creech Jones: The answer has appeared in a White Paper which has had very considerable publicity in the Press, and which has frequently been noted in this House.

Mr. Hudson: If that is so, is there any objection to the right hon. Gentleman saying, briefly, what it is?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is another question, and I am not anxious to exhaust the patience of the House.

Nyasaland Legislative Council

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he

will make a statement on the reconstitution of the Legislative Council in Nyasaland.

Mr. Creech Jones: Local opinion is being consulted in regard to certain proposed changes in the constitution of the Legislative Council of Nyasaland, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject. I shall hope to do so in due course.

Tea Planting

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the possible shortage of tea, it is proposed to remove the present limitation of acreage now in force so as to permit increased acreages to be planted with tea in the East African territories and Nyasaland.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. File East African governments arc taking steps to amend existing legislation, where that is necessary, to permit increased acreages to be planted.

Food Imports (East Africa)

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what tonnages of foodstuffs have been imported into Kenya and Tanganyika, respectively, in the last three years; from where have these foodstuffs been obtained; what was the cost to each territory in each of the three years; and if the East African Governments have examined the question and cost of modern methods of storage for locally-produced foodstuffs.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Governors of Kenya and Tanganyika for supplementary information on the points raised in the Question, and will communicate with the hon. Member as early as possible.

Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Nigeria, Rhodesia and East Africa this question of the conservation and preservation of food by methods of cold storage is totally inadequate, due to private enterprise ruining the whole issue; and, further, that this is a very serious matter, and will he look into the whole range of the Colonies on this issue?

Mr. Creech Jones: The question of cold storage is receiving the attention of the local Government.

Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private enterprise is holding it up?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that biscuits and jams are being exported from this country to Kenya and are being sent back in food parcels to people in this country, and will he look into the matter?

Transport Situation

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he intends to take to alleviate the transport situation revealed in the Oil Seeds Mission Report, Colonial 211; and what priority he will secure for locomotives and rolling stock for the Nigerian railways.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply is rather long and contains figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Erroll: Does the reply indicate that immediate action is to be taken?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think it is quite comprehensive.
Following is the reply:
The question of alleviating the transport situation in West Africa has received, and is receiving, my personal attention, and I have, in conjunction with Ministers concerned, done everything possible to speed up delivery of the large and various requirements.. As the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware, demands on manufacturers for the production of railway materials have, since the end of the war, been extremely heavy. No system of priorities, as understood during the war years, is now in operation; but close contact is being kept with firms concerned in the manufacture of all kinds of materials required by the Nigerian Railways, including locomotives, and wagons, track laying material and spare parts, and every effort is being made to get supplies out to the Colony with the least possible delay.
As regards the important question of locomotives, I am glad to say that the 14 locomotives ordered from Canada have now been completed, and it is expected that shipment of these will commence this month. The delivery of the 20 locomotives on order from the United Kingdom, which was scheduled to begin in August, has, I regret to say, been set back owing to the fuel crisis, and may not now be

possible before the end of the year. On the question of the future requirements of the Nigerian Railways, orders have been placed for 42 locomotives and some 1,400 wagons for delivery between 1947 and 1952. It has been requested that equal consideration may be given to these requirements with those accorded to British Railways.

Nigeria (Development)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the central board for the administration of Nigeria's development plan is composed entirely of European officials; and what steps it is proposed to take to associate the people of Nigeria with its work.

Mr. Creech Jones: The members of the Central Development Board have until now been European officers, but the Governor is adding two Africans to the Central Board. African interests are already represented on the Provincial Development Committees, and decisions of the Central Board concerning the allocation of development funds are subject to approval of the Legislative Council, on which there is now an African majority. Publicity has been given to the proposals and the local government is improving public relation facilities: It is alive to the importance of associating the people of Nigeria with the programme, and the recent constitutional changes will contribute to that end.

Eur-African Children, Nyasaland

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what separate educational provision is made for EuroAfrican children in Nyasaland; and why these children are not educated in African schools.

Mr. Creech Jones: After careful consideration by the Nyasaland Government of the educational needs of the Eur-African community a small day school for Eur-African children at Blantyre was started last year on an experimental basis. Elsewhere Eur-African children attend African schools.

Mr. Driberg: While realising the difficulty of this problem, may I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware of the representations made about it by Africans, and of the danger of building up, not


merely one kind of racial prejudice, but a whole hierarchy of castes based on colour?

Mr. Creech Jones: As my hon. Friend knows, my effort is directed towards eliminating discrimination altogether.

Colonel Ponsonby: How many children are involved?

Mr. Creech Jones: Approximately, over the whole of Nyasaland, I believe 1,800 such children. In this school, I think, there are about 100 of them.

Mr. Keeling: Is not the asking of 43 Questions today of the Secretary of State for the Colonies sufficient evidence that the statement sometimes made in the Colonies that this House takes no interest in the Colonies is quite untrue?

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Press Law

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he approved the statement of the Colonial Secretary of Cyprus that he might have to suppress some newspapers in the island for attacking the Government; and whether he proposes to assent to actions under laws passed in 1931, during a period of violence, at a time when no violence is occurring.

Mr. Creech Jones: After consultation with me, a warning was issued to the Press by the Colonial Secretary of Cyprus to the effect that the continued use of the Press to subvert the machinery of government or for incitement to disorder might entail the use by the Colonial Secretary of his power, which was first conferred upon him by Law No. 26 of 1934, to cancel or suspend any permit granted under the law where he is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. So long as the existing Press law of Cyprus remains in force, the Governor must be left free to take action under it at his discretion, especially when, as was the case here, he is satisfied that the ownership of a newspaper was being regarded as a free licence to indulge in deliberate falsehoods in an attempt to bring the machinery of government to a standstill. The warning was given after a campaign of this nature had been carried on in certain sections of

the Press for some months, and it did not relate to attacks upon Government.

Mr. Bramall: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a reputable democratic practice to suspend newspapers because they attack the Government, and does he not think that Cyprus is entitled to some form of democratic Government?

Mr. Creech Jones: Cyprus is being invited at the present time to consider a democratic Government. This warning was not given because of attacks on the Government. I quite agree that to suppress a newspaper for such attacks would be quite wrong.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no Cyprus newspaper will be suppressed just because it publishes former speeches of Commander Fletcher?

Mr. John Paton: Would it not be much better, in cases of this kind, not to proceed under these special Press laws, but, where offences can be proved, to proceed by the ordinary process of law through the courts?

Mr. Creech Jones: But there has been no suppression here. All that has happened is that the Colonial Secretary has issued a warning in regard to subversive attacks.

Mr. Eden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious matter, and can he, at any rate, give the House an assurance that there will be no prolongation of this state of affairs, and that he will consult with the Governor as to when full freedom can be restored?

Mr. Creech Jones: No freedom has been denied; complete freedom is enjoyed at the present time by the Press in Cyprus.

Mr. Eden: If that is so, what is the warning for?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House on how many occasions newspapers in Cyprus have, in fact, been prosecuted for subversive activities, and with what results?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am fully aware of the lamentable history of the Press law in Cyprus, and I am keeping a most watchful eye on the matter in order to prevent any irregularities arising.

Mr. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to answer the question? I asked him on how many occasions newspapers in Cyprus have been prosecuted under the criminal law, and with what results.

Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously, I should want notice of that question.

Mr. Marlowe: As the right hon. Gentleman said he had issued some sort of warning, will he tell the House what sort of warning it was, and what they had been warned not to do?

Mr. Creech Jones: I did not say that I myself had issued the warning. I said the Colonial Secretary issued it.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Colonial Secretary issued it after consulting the right hon. Gentleman? Surely, he is not going to try to shift all the responsibility on to the Colonial Secretary?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not attempting to shift the responsibility on to anyone. I said the warning had been issued by the Colonial Secretary after consultation with me.

Mr. Bramall: Would it not be by far the most satisfactory solution to annul these very exceptional and undemocratic Press laws?

Government Salaries

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he 's aware that the post of clerical assistant in the Commissioner's office, Limassol, was recently advertised at a salary of £60, rising to £96 per annum plus war bonus; and whether, in view of the high cost of living in Cyprus, he will take action to see that Government salaries are improved.

Mr. Creech Jones: Appointment to this particular post is at the discretion of the Governor, and I would not be specifically apprised of any advertisement issued in connection with it. At the rates current in March of this year, war bonus would bring the initial emoluments of the post in question to over £160 per annum. All salaries and conditions of service in Cyprus were improved in 1946 after consideration of the report of a special commissioner.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the Minister satisfied that he will get the kind of person he

wants for this sort of job at this extremely low rate of pay?

Mr. Creech Jones: This matter is within the competence of the Government of Cyprus, but it is a point into which will make further inquiries.

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask what is a clerical assistant? Is it an assistant clergyman, or half a clerk, and, in either event, are not these rates of pay absurd?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have just said that as far as the rate of pay is concerned, it is a point which I am taking up.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (INDIAN CORN)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the scarcity of poultry food in Europe and of the fact that less than half the land of Ceylon is cultivated, he will consider, with the Ceylon Government, the plantation of large tracts of uninhabitated Crown land in the north and east one monsoon zone, now generally growing trees and scrub of no value even as firewood, with Indian corn, before the next monsoon breaks, the British Gvernment guaranteeing purchase of the corn at a good price f.o.b. Colombo.

Mr. Creech Jones: Ceylon is seriously short of food herself, and the Ceylon Government are already doing their utmost to increase the island's production of foodstuffs for her own needs. Large areas of land have been brought into cultivation for this purpose, but sufficiency is not in sight. In these circumstances, I fear there is little chance at present of her being able to grow poultry food for Europe.

Mr. Reid: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government of Ceylon have taken a hand in this matter, or whether they have merely suggested to the cultivators that they should cultivate here and there?

Mr. Creech Jones: There has been some consultation with the Ceylon Government.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is it not a fact that the Ceylon Government, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister, Mr. Senanayake, have been breaking up a large amount of jungle land and clearing it in order to grow food for the Ceylon population?

Mr. Creech Jones: I believe that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Terrorism (Preventive Measures)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, in view of the continuance of terrorist outrages in Palestine, more vigorous and sustained operations against terrorists will now be undertaken, including the placing and keeping under martial law of all Jewish towns and settlements;
(2) whether, in order to impress upon the Jewish population of Palestine the necessity for its full co-operation in the suppression of terrorism, collective fines will in future be levied and prominent citizens taken as hostages in localities in which outrages are perpetrated.

Mr. Creech Jones: The maintenance of good order in Palestine depends very largely on the co-operation of the people with the administration and the discharge of the normal requirements of citizenship. In present circumstances, the administration is obliged to carry a difficult and onerous responsibility. It is for the High Commissioner to consider, in consultation with the military authorities, and in the light of events, whether the situation calls for the introduction of military administration in any particular area. The authorities are tackling this problem of terrorism with the greatest resolution and with the most appropriate methods within the capacity of the available resources.
Collective fines have not, so far, been levied on any groups deemed collectively responsible for terrorism. As I mentioned in reply to a question on 30th April by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), the question of possible steps to recover the cost of damage done in terrorist outrages is now under consideration, and I cannot, at this stage, add to my reply of 30th April to the hon. Member for Orpington.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are two separate Questions, and that his answer gave very little information? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the intermittent operation of martial law which has so far been exercised in Palestine, is far from being effective, that the strain on the troops is very serious indeed, and is being given expression to by the troops, and will the right hon. Gentleman go into

this matter much more fully than he has done at present and give a free hand to the local commander to knock out terrorism?

Mr. Creech Jones: All I can say is that the High Commissioner is charged with the responsibility of order in Palestine; he is working in the fullest co-operation with the military authorities; there are no hindrances put in the way of either the High Commissioner or the military authorities by London, and so their decisions are made in the light of the local situation.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any new action will be taken as a result of the incident at Acre gaol, which has brought British prestige very low?

Mr. Creech Jones: I shall be replying later to a Question concerning that outrage. I have caused very special inquiries to be made, and will be considering what further action can be taken.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the system of hostages advocated by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) was used without success by the Nazis during the war, and will he also bear in mind that vicarious punishment is completely foreign to the traditions of British justice?

Mr. Janner: When my right hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he please bear in mind that the towns and villages referred to played a very active part, with the Allies, in the course of the war, and will he see that the innocent in Palestine who are doing their share in attempting to stop terrorism will not be prejudiced by such measures as may be taken to put down the terrorists?

Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously, all these points will be taken into consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement with regard to collective fines.

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many convictions of terrorism have been recorded in Palestine in the 12 months ended 30th April, 1947; how many death sentences have been passed; and in how many cases the death sentence has been carried out.

Mr. Creech Jones: Ninety-seven Jewish terrorists were sentenced by military


courts to terms of imprisonment, and z8 to sentences of death. There were no convictions by civil courts. Of the Jewish terrorists sentenced to death, two committed suicide while awaiting execution, and four were executed.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Was not this leniency very misplaced, and cannot the persistence of outrage and murder be attributed, to some extent, to the leniency with which offenders and murderers have been dealt with?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Stanley: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the 97 terrorists sentenced to imprisonment have since escaped?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not in a position to say, but I am trying to get that information.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that all these lamentable events will never be fully eradicated, and law and order will never be restored in Palestine, until His Majesty's Government announce and introduce a constructive political policy, and that it is impossible for the Government to impose order merely by force without any policy of any kind?

Police (Amenities)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what extra amenities he has provided for the Palestine Police during the last six months, in view of their especially arduous conditions of service.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Palestine Government are most anxious to increase to the greatest possible extent the amenities available to the Force, whose present task, as my hon. Friend points out, is particularly arduous. During recent months their facilities for recreation and entertainment have been increased, and further expansion of these facilities is being actively pursued. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving details of these measures.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that until a fortnight ago the chief

welfare officer of the Palestine Police had to beg or borrow sports equipment from the Army; and would he see that this is provided by his own Department?

Mr. Creech Jones: I was not aware of that.

Following is the statement:

(a) Extra amenities provided during the past six months are as follow:

(i) Extension of use of Force transport for recreational purposes.
(ii) Increase in the issue of Sunday newspapers in conjunction with the Army Sunday Newspapers Scheme.
(iii) Extension to British Section of the Force of right of entry to all Army Kinema Corporation cinemas.
(iv) Provision of additional furniture fox recreation rooms of Palestine Police.
(v) Provision of additional radio sets from Army Welfare sources and by purchase.
(vi) Grant for improvements in outdoor amenities, e.g., game shooting, bathing and other sports.
(vii) A police mobile cinema to be used for outlying stations.
(vii) Use of police horses for recreation.

(b) Further measures under active consideration include:

(i) Scheme for short leaves in neighbouring territories, e.g., Cyprus, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon.
(ii) Scheme for local leave for British other ranks within Palestine.
(iii) Assistance from Combined Services Entertainments Unit in provision of live entertainment for British Police.
(iv) Provision of additional mobile cinematographs.
(v) General all round improvements in the Forces' recreation rooms.
(vi) Purchase of yachts for a police sailing club.
(vii) Book and magazine drive.
(viii) Intensification of games campaign

Acre Gaol Attack

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the attack by terrorists on the gaol at Acre and the escape of prisoners.

Mr. Creech Jones: At half-past four in the afternoon of 4th May a party of armed Jews, some of whom were wearing British military uniforms, arrived in British military transport in the market place at Acre. Simultaneously with their arrival explosions occurred in the town and firing broke out in various localities. Four main explosions occurred in the vicinity of the old Turkish baths which


abut on the prison, and as a result one wall surrounding the exercise ground was breached. This attack took place at the time when the prisoners were at exercise, and numbers of Arab and Jewish prisoners escaped through the breach in the wall. At the same time grenades were thrown by the attackers into the criminal lunatic section of the prison, wounding several inmates, and automatic small arms fire was directed at the prison from various points.
The attackers were engaged by police and troops, both in Acre town itself and in the vicinity. Immediately after the attack military and police patrols were organised, and one of these, a party of paratroops, having been fired on by a number of Jews, returned fire and inflicted five casualties, one of which was fatal. This was a Jew dressed as a captain in the Royal Engineers. Troops also intercepted two vehicles carrying Jews north of the town. After a brief engagement 12 Jews were captured, two of whom were dead and three wounded. One of the dead Jews was dressed in the uniform of a captain in the Royal Army Service Corps. Another dead Jew dressed in British military uniform was found in an Army truck abandoned on the outskirts of the city. After the attack, roads in the vicinity of Acre town were found to be mined. Six soldiers travelling in a military truck were wounded by one of these mines. Other casualties during the attack on police and prison personnel were limited to one officer slightly injured and a British constable seriously wounded in the leg.
In the action immediately following the attack, 14 Jewish prisoners were recaptured, of whom four were dead and six injured: of the Arab prisoners, 12 were recaptured, of whom one was dead and two injured. Extensive operations have continued for the recapture of the escaped prisoners, and further details are still coming in. My latest report on 6th May states that 29 Jews and 214 Arabs were still at liberty. The fullest investigations into the circumstances of this occurrence are being made.

Mr. Gammans: Is not the Minister going to give a better explanation than that, of what is surely a unique occurrence in British Colonial history, when a heavily guarded place like a gaol in a country with a garrison of 100,000 men can apparently be attacked with impunity?

Mr. Creech Jones: I said in the latter part of my reply that I have called for a full report on the whole incident. I have provided the House with the information which, up to yesterday, had come to hand.

Mr. Stanley: In view of the very deep public concern about this incident, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the results of the inquiry will he made available to the House, and that we shall have an adequate opportunity subsequently for debate?

Mr. Creech Jones: I certainly will see that the information that comes to hand is available to the House. With regard to the facilities for debate that, of course, is not a matter for me, but for the Leader of the House.

Major Legge-Bourke: Was the guarding of Acre Gaol the responsibility of the Palestine Police or of the military? What were the orders regarding the arming of the sentries?

Mr. Creech Jones: I shall have to await further information from the Palestine authorities. I have asked for more information. I have given the information which has come to hand so far.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the strike of workers on rubber estates in Malaya.

Mr. Creech Jones: The only recent incident reported to me is a disturbance which took place on an estate in South Kedah on 28th April. No strike was, however, involved. Inquiries are proceeding regarding this incident, but the situation was reported to be calm on the following morning. There appears to be no evidence to suggest any connection between this incident and the earlier troubles on estates which were the subject of my reply to the hon. Member on 23rd April.

Mr. Gammans: Why does not the Minister give a comprehensive explanation of all these labour troubles in Malaya? Are they due to shortages of food, or Communist agitation, or what is it? Cannot we have a comprehensive statement?

Mr. Creech Jones: I thought that a statement had been made. Certainly, information has been put in the Library of the House.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Did not the Minister's statement deal only with the Kedah uprising; is not this very much more widespread; is it not due mainly to the fact that the workers have not got enough rice; and is he not aware that without enough rice we shall never get satisfactory conditions in Malaya?

Mr. Creech Jones: We appreciate that food and economic difficulties are behind a great deal of this agitation, but it is impossible for one to make a comprehensive statement in regard to the general economic situation in Malaya and the conditions of the workers, which was the request of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans).

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Laid-Up Ships

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many of His Majesty's ships are now laid up or could not be ready for service in 14 days.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I regret that it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the state of unrest in the world, in view of the enormous commitments of our country, and in view of the increasing menace of Communism, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Royal Navy, which has saved us so often in the past, will be kept fully equipped and ready for action?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is not this a very simple request in time of peace? Is it really against the public interest that this figure should be disclosed?

Mr. Dugdale: It is frequently very desirable that certain information should not be disclosed to the public, and this is one of the kinds of such information.

Sir Ronald Ross: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea when it will be possible to resume the practice of publishing the Admiralty List?

Mr. Dugdale: Not at the moment, but I am perfectly willing to consult my noble Friend to see if, later, it will be possible.

Mr. Eden: But was not this information available before the war? Will not the Admiralty take as a guiding rule that the practice followed before the war should be followed now? This secrecy and hush-hush is most disagreeable.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Dugdale: I thought I had answered that previously, in saying that I will consult with my noble Friend to see if in time it will be possible to release this information.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any of these ships could easily be repaired within 14 days if he were to get a team of Communist engineers on the job?

Major. Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that he does not concede the inference contained in the first supplementary question of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir.

Strength

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state approximately the number of officers and ratings on the strength; and how many of them are ashore and afloat at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Dugdale: The approximate total strength of the Navy at 31st March was 190,000, including Royal Marine Police, but excluding Wrens. Of these, some 75,000 were serving afloat, the remainder including men under training, were ashore. The Wrens numbered about 7,400.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that His Majesty's ships cannot put to sea unless adequately manned, and in view of the fact that I am told it is very difficult for some ships to put to sea, will the hon. Gentleman see that as many ratings are put afloat as possible?

Mr. Dugdale: I am glad the hon. Member has now caught up with his leader, who asked the same question rather earlier. If he will read my statement on


the Estimates he will see the explanation of the large number of people who are unavoidably ashore at the present time.

Scientific Service

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the present strength of the R.N. Scientific Service; and what proportion is this figure of the Scientific Civil Service.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The present authorised complement of the R.N. Scientific Service comprises 1,127 officers in the scientific and experimental classes. This figure is approximately one-eighth of the total complement of officers in the Scientific Civil Service.

Commander Noble: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what the actual figure is?

Mr. Edwards: I said 1,127 in the Navy

Rosyth Base

Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, if he has considered a letter from the Methil Co-operative Society, sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, urging the retention of Rosyth naval base and its continued use for the repair of naval and merchant ships: and what reply he has made.

Mr. W. Edwards: Yes, Sir, and I have written to my hon. Friend referring him to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on 20th November, 1946, to the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison).

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Civil Lord aware that a very large number of communications have been sent to him during the past few weeks, and that the answer he has given to them is the same that we have been getting regularly for three years?

Captain Crookshank: It shows the hon. Gentleman is persistent, anyhow.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Civil Lord say when a decision can be made on this question, and will he give us an approximate date on which he will receive a deputation to give the final decision—the final favourable decision?

Mr. Edwards: I am quite aware of the considerable number of communications which are received, and also of the desire of deputations to come along. Indeed, my noble Friend and I have met one or two only recently. I can assure the hon. Member that this matter is under consideration, and that the final decision will be reached as soon as possible.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any consultation with the Minister of Defence in this matter, in view of the strategic advantage in two world wars of having a naval base in Scotland?

Mr. Edwards: I can inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this matter has been considered by the Minister of Defence, and was, indeed, considered by him before he became Minister of Defence. Before any final decision is made he will be consulted in connection with it.

Mr. Jennings: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the major factor, besides the solvency of this Co-operative Society, in deciding whether they get this port or not?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Arising out of the Civil Lord's original reply, can the hon. Gentleman say whether, conversely, any communication has been received from Rosyth naval base urging the retention of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)?

Long-Service Pensions

Mr. Willis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to state what adjustments to long-service naval pensions are contemplated by reason of the retiral pensions benefits proposed under the National Insurance Act, 1946.

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I regret I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 25th November last.

Mr. Willis: Can the Financial Secretary give any indication when he will be able to make a statement on this, in view of its importance?

Mr. Dugdale: I fully realise its importance, but it concerns a number of other Departments besides the Admiralty. I cannot yet give any firm date.

Maltese Ratings

Mr. Mallalieu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why Maltese serving in the R.N. are not allowed to become members of guns' crews.

Mr. Dugdale: It would not in general be economical to train in the more specialised gunnery duties men who are serving on non-continuous engagements for service only in locally employed craft in which there are no such duties to perform. In the case of ships with large power-worked gun mountings, however, it is common practice to use Maltese ratings as part of the guns crews in the turret magazines and shell rooms.

Mr. Mallalien: As the Maltese proved themselves to be expert gunners in the Army, is it not time that the Navy removed this restriction?

Mr. Dugdale: That is another question.

Requisitioned Agricultural Land

Commander Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many acres of agricultural land are now held under requisition by his Department for the storage of ammunition; and what plans he has for the early restoration of this land to food production.

Mr. W. Edwards: A total of 698 acres of agricultural land is now held under requisition by the Admiralty for the storage of ammunition. It is intended to clear and release 298 acres by the end of this year. Two hundred acres will probably be required for a permanent subsidiary armament depot. The remaining 200 acres are used for storage of large quantities of ammunition being returned from overseas.

Dartmouth College Entry (New Scheme)

Major Bruce: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the future of the Dartmouth and Special Entry schemes of elevation to commissioned rank.

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I will, with permission, make a statement on this subject at the end of Questions.

Later—

Mr. Dugdale: The Admiralty have for some time been reviewing the methods of recruiting officers for the Royal Navy, with particular reference to the entry through the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that we have every reason to be satisfied with the quality of the naval officer produced by the entry of boys at about 13½ years of age, and their subsequent education at Dartmouth. The Royal Navy can justly claim that its officers have stood the supreme test of war, a claim which my noble Friend, the First Lord, and the Board of Admiralty, are proud to have the opportunity of endorsing. The best tribute to Dartmouth is the distinction with which the product has served the country.
We feel, however, that, for reasons which I propose to give, the time has come for a change in the present system of entry into the Royal Navy through Dartmouth. This system and the training given at Dartmouth may be regarded as having taken their present form about 40 years ago, though one far reaching change was made in 1941, when my right hon. Friend, who is now the Minister of Defence, introduced the scholarship system.
When Dartmouth was founded the educational system in the country was very different from what it is now. Inevitably, entry was the privilege of boys whose parents were able to afford to send their children to preparatory schools. The reduced fee system which has been in operation at Dartmouth for many years did little to attract others, and the scholarship system of 1941, excellent as it was, was only a beginning of the broadening of the basis of entry. The new educational system of the country, designed as it is to ensure that every child has an equal opportuity of securing the best education he is capable of absorbing, makes it possible to afford the opportunity of becoming a naval officer to boys from all classes of the community who possess the qualities of mind and potential leadership required by the Royal Navy.
With this object in view, my noble Friend has decided to modify the system of entry into the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, to provide for candidates to join at about the age of 16 years. Evidence will be required of candidates'


educational standard—something approximating to the present school certificate is the standard provisionally in mind—and of their ability to profit by the further education which will be given after entry. The method of selection will also include an interview, the exact scope of which has not yet been determined. Cadets entering Dartmouth under this scheme will be eligible for the Executive, Engineering and Supply Branches of the Royal Navy. It is contemplated that they should spend five terms at Dartmouth before proceeding to sea. The House will, I think, be glad to hear that no fees or charges, either for tuition or board and lodging, will be payable in respect of new style Dartmouth cadets.
Entry will be open to candidates of the quality required from whatever schools they come. I am satisfied that with such a wide basis of recruitment, followed by nearly two years' further education and training at Dartmouth College, there is every reason to expect that the naval officer produced by the new Dartmouth system will be a worthy successor to the naval officer of today.
The Admiralty intend, of course, to continue the system of recruiting officers from the lower deck and, as I stated in my speech introducing the Navy Estimates, we hope that it will be possible to select an overall average of 20–25 per cent. of officers in these branches from the lower deck. It is hoped that ultimately the new system of Dartmouth entry will provide one half of the remainder of the officers required for the Navy, the balance coming from the special entry system at about 18 years of age, which it is also intended to continue.
It is not possible yet to fix a date when this new scheme will be introduced but it is hoped that the first entries will begin in September, 1948. In a new scheme of this magnitude there are bound to be many details to settle. The Admiralty contemplate that in the initial stages the two systems will operate side by side, the numbers under the present system being gradually reduced, and the numbers under the new system gradually increased until the new system is fully operative.
The House will recognise that the scheme affords for the first time an opportunity to suitable boys from all schools in the country of becoming naval officers; and the Admiralty are confident

that they can rely on the co-operation of education authorities, headmasters, arid others concerned in education, in ensuring the success of the scheme.

Mr. Churchill: As I think I was the first to introduce commissioned entry from the lower deck, I am in sympathy with the general spirit of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I wish to ask him this: Are we to take it that the period of training for the midshipman is now to be reduced from four years to two and a half years, or something like that? There is now four years' very intensive and specialised training. Is that being thrown over, and are we coming down to two and a half years? I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, so perhaps he can tell me whether that is so?

Mr. Dugdale: Not altogether; it is not a question of training midshipmen, but the training of cadets. They will receive less training at Dartmouth, because much of the previous training there was of a purely educational nature, which they will now acquire at school. We shall concentrate, in the shorter time, on the technical training which will be necessary.

Mr. Churchill: Was not a great deal done by way of the vocational training which was obtained during this four years? It certainly produced a marvellous class of officers for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir. As I have been at pains to explain, it produced a marvellous type of officer, and we think that the new scheme will produce an equally good type of officer, even with the shorter period.

Mr. Churchill: I would like to make it clear that this matter will have to be debated. We cannot give our accord, at this stage, to the definite reduction of the vocational training of officers of the Royal Navy from four years to two and a half.

Major Bruce: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be generally welcomed in the Service, not only as a move towards ending an entirely obsolete class discrimination, but also as a means of maintaining that high standard of naval efficiency of which this country has been proud?

Commander Pursey: Is my hon. Friend aware that although his statement will


give general satisfaction, as far as it goes, further democratisation is necessary in the special entry system from the public schools at the age of 18, which at present is largely restricted to the more expensive schools?

Mr. James Callaghan: Is it not the case that we have had for a long time special entry at the age of 18 for officers, and that senior naval officers take the view that after a few years' training it has been impossible to tell the difference between a Dartmouth entry and a special entry at 18?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, that is perfectly true.

Mr. Churchill: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that I personally was responsible for the outside entry, both from the universities and from the public schools, and that the core of naval officers has always had this intensive training?

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot agree to the separation of naval officers into a corps and something which is not a corps.

Mr. Churchill: I shall have to instruct the hon. Gentleman in spelling. In this case, core is spelt "core".

Sir Arthur Salter: Is not the period of provisional training under this proposal less than two years and not two and a half years?

Mr. Dugdale: We are not definite as to the exact period, but we think that it will be five terms or possibly six.

Mr. Charles Williams: As Dartmouth is in my constituency, may I be allowed to ask a question? [Interruption.] I am more closely responsible for it, possibly, than some other hon. Members. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the retaining of the geographical situation of Dartmouth College will bring very great satisfaction to South Devon as being obviously the most suitable place for it?

Commander Maitland: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it has been decided by the Admiralty to keep the existing midshipman system and also the Greenwich system, because these are indivisible when one is considering the training of officers?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. There is no alteration in that.

Mr. King: While welcoming the statement, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to assure us that the intellectual content of the education given between i6 and 18 will bring cadets near to the higher school certificate standard? Can he assure us that the curriculum will not be overloaded with technical training upon the excuse that the allotted period is now short?

Mr. Dugdale: They will certainly get an adequate amount of intellectual training.

Mrs. Manning: While welcoming the statement that the more technical side of the training is to be deferred until r6, may I ask whether the selection from schools will be by nomination or by examination, and whether Dartmouth College is to come in any sense within the ordinary educational system of the country?

Mr. Dugdale: There will be both an examination and an interview, but Dartmouth will obviously not come altogether within the ordinary educational system of the country. The Board of Education have been consulted on this, and they think that it is a workable scheme, with which they are very satisfied.

Commander Noble: While welcoming the general implication of the statement, and having had the Minister's assurance that his object is to produce first-class naval officers, may I ask if there will be any further opportunity of discussing the details of this scheme?

Mr. Dugdale: I am afraid that that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Skinnard: As the school certificate has been mentioned as a standard of entry, is it intended that the dockyard school cadet scholarships shall be tenable at Dartmouth College?

Mr. Dugdale: That is another question.

Boat Building (Timber Allocation)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the building of boats required urgently by his Department is being held up by the inability of boat-builders to obtain the necessary timber; and if he is giving priority to these builders within the total amount of timber allocated to his Department.

Mr. W. Edwards: I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind the case of one


particular boat builder, who is engaged on work for the Admiralty. Inquiries are being made, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Driberg: Has my hon. Friend observed that the second part of my Question is much more general; will he answer it, and show that he is aware of the very serious situation in this industry?

Mr. Edwards: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the serious situation in the boat building industry, but that is not a matter which is entirely within the province of the Admiralty, as we depend on allocations of raw materials from other Departments.

Earl Winterton: Will the Civil Lord bear in mind that what the hon. Member is suggesting would mean considerable unemployment in many boat building centres at the present time, where boats are being built not only for use in this country, but for export?

Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was merely suggesting a proper grading of priorities as between different kinds of boats produced?

Commander Maitland: Will the Civil Lord confirm or deny that there is a shortage of boats in His Majesty's Navy at the present moment?

Mr. Edwards: I am afraid that that does not arise on this Question.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the Civil Lord go into the question of whether the small boat builders are getting a fair proportion of the work available?

Mr. Edwards: The small boat builders engaged in building commercial craft and fishing vessels are definitely getting a fair share of the allocation.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Meat Ration

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Food to what extent butchers were unable to obtain sufficient meat to enable them to honour the ration entitlement during the quarter ended 31st March.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): To no extent.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if that answer applies to Scotland? From information at my disposal it seems that many local butchers have not had sufficient beef to meet their requirements during the last three months.

Mr. Strachey: We have made extensive inquiries and can find no case.

Home-Killed Meat

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding supplies of home-killed livestock which are expected to be available for the provision of the meat ration up to the end of 1947; and what effect the unusually big kill of English meat last autumn has had on the position.

Mr. Strachey: Supplies of home-killed meat for 1947 are provisionally estimated at about 700,000 tons. The abnormally heavy killings last autumn increased supplies of home-killed meat in 1946 by about 50,000 tons, mainly at the expense of supplies for 1947.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of what we may, expect this year? He did not give us any information of the amount coming forward.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We estimate—it is only an estimate, at this stage—that for 1947 there will be 700,000 tons of home-killed meat.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I do not like estimates, especially estimates from the Government, because they are so unreliable?

Service Leave Rations

Mr. Monslow: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the inadequate issue of bread rationing coupons and rations given to members of His Majesty's Forces when on 72 hours' leave; and if he will consider an increase.

Mr. Strachey: The aim is to give members of His Majesty's Forces civilian rations, as nearly as possible, when on leave. By agreement with the Services Departments, two kinds of ration cards are used: one, for periods of four to seven days giving a full week's rations and one for two or three days, giving approximately 3½ days' supply of the foods rationed on a weekly basis.

Syrup (Points)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider a reduction in the number of points required for golden syrup.

Mr. Strachey: The points values of syrup were reduced on 30th March and again on 27th April.

East African Groundnut Scheme

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Food what are financial terms of the agreement under which the United Africa Company has been appointed as his managing agents for the launching of the East African Groundnut Scheme.

Mr. Strachey: The expenditure incurred by the company will be reimbursed by the Ministry, but the company—and I should like to thank them for this—has agreed to make no claim to any remuneration for its services; in other words it is a cost, but not a cost plus, basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING

News Bulletins

Mrs. Ganley: asked the Postmaster-General why the overseas news of the B.B.C. gives much more varied information on the same subjects than the Home Service does; and whether, as this creates a different impression upon the peoples who listen, he will have the two assimilated.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I am assured that the treatment of an item in the B.B.C.'s Home and Overseas news bulletins does not differ in any material respect; but the presentation in the overseas news must necessarily have regard to the widely differing audiences reached by that news.

Mrs. Ganley: Does not the Postmaster-General consider that it differs very considerably in point of interest in the announcement of the news?

Mr. Paling: I am told that that is the very point on which there is no difference.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Postmaster-General aware that his reply is totally inaccurate? As I have most frequently broadcast on the Overseas News Programme—

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Wyatt: Because I am very good.

"America Calling Europe"

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of time on our European broadcasting services is leased to the U.S.A.; what are the conditions of, and reasons for, the lease; and what other countries allocate to the U.S.A. a proportion of time on the wavelengths internationally allotted to them.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: A little over one-tenth of the total output of the B.B.C.'s European Services consists of "America Calling Europe" broadcasts. The arrangements for rebroadcasts of United States programmes by the B.B.C. were originally made during the war as part of reciprocal aid, and I understand they have since continued, on a reduced scale, on a cash basis, payment being made in dollars. Information to answer the last part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Levy: Owing to the fact that the limited number of wavelengths available is frequently given as an excuse or reason why developments in the B.B.C. are restricted, is it not a little prodigal to rent some of them out to a foreign Power?

Mr. Paling: I will make inquiries into that matter.

White Horse Hill Project

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement concerning the proposed radio station in the neighbourhood of White Horse Hill on the Berkshire Downs.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Since my previous reply on this subject, I myself visited White Horse Hill. Having seen the proposed site for the television station and the general surroundings, I agree that we should locate the station elsewhere and I have given instructions accordingly.

Mr. Driberg: While welcoming this decision very warmly, and realising that the original blunder was made before my right hon. Friend went to the Post Office, may I ask what steps are being taken to prevent this kind of thing happening again?

Mr. Paling: I have not had much of a chance to do anything besides this since I took office, but I propose to look into the general arrangments.

Sir R. Glyn: May I thank the Postmaster-General for his prompt action in


going down there, and may I ask him whether it is possible, in future, for consultations to take place with the Ordnance Survey to see that triangulation can be done in a more simple way than this?

Captain Crookshank: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inform the Minister of Town and Country Planning of this decision, and tell him that there is no harm done in changing an opinion in deference to public opinion?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postal Service, London

Mr. Keeling: asked the Postmaster-General whether he intends to make any further contraction of postal collections and deliveries in Greater London.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I have already informed the hon. Member, that it is not the intention to restore the 7·30 p.m. and 9 p.m. collections in London, which were suspended during the recent fuel crisis. It has also been decided not to restore the 7 p.m. delivery which was similarly suspended. In future there will be three deliveries in London, with a final delivery commencing at about 3–3·30 p.m., and a final collection at 6–6.30 p.m. In the area contiguous to London, the 8–8.30 p.m. collection will be withdrawn, and the number of deliveries will be reduced to two.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the Postmaster-General give us a reason for the reductions?

Mr. Paling: The hon. and gallant Member knows there is a shortage of manpower in the country, and we have been asked to make our contribution towards this problem.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to give notice that I shall draw attention to this and other postal deficiencies on the Adjournment on Monday next.

Jamaica Parcels and Letters

Commander Noble: asked the Postmaster-General what is the reason for

the delay in delivery in this country of food parcels from Jamaica.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am not aware that there is any undue delay at present, although unfortunately there was some earlier in the year owing to very heavy arrivals during the Christmas and New Year periods. In general, parcels are released for delivery within a few days of their arrival, but if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have details of any specific recent delay, I shall be glad to investigate.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Postmaster-General why letters sent from Jamaica by air mail take 15 days to reach this country and what action he is taking to speed up deliveries.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Correspondence despatched from Jamaica by air throughout, normally reaches this country within two to four days. I understand, however, that a service at cheaper rates with air transmission from Jamaica to the U.S.A. and—thence by sea is also available, and correspondence sent by this service might take up to 15 days. If my hon. Friend will let me have details, and, if possible, the envelopes of any letters which appear to have been delayed. I will gladly have inquiries made.

Stamp Machines (Excess)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Postmaster-General the total amount collected, during the 12 months prior to the latest accountable date, from public stamp machines in excess of the value of the stamps supplied from those machines.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: For the 12 months ended 31st March, 1946, the excess amount collected was approximately £1,100.

Mr. Allighan: Will the Postmaster-General see that some device is fixed to these machines so that the public do not have to pay for stamps which are not there?

Mr. Paling: If it were possible to find a completely accurate machine, we should welcome it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Will the Leader of the House state the intentions of the Government in respect of today's Business?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We would hope to make substantial progress with the Committee stage of the National Service Bill today, and it is expected to conclude the Committee stage tomorrow. To

that end, it appears to us that it would be reasonable if the Debate on the Amendment which is to be moved by the Minister of Defence were concluded about dinner time.

Mr. Eden: May we know at what time the right hon. Gentleman has his dinner?

Mr. Morrison: That varies according to one's feelings; that is why it is a very good phrase to use in this connection.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 147.

Division No. 186.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edelman, M.
McGhee, H. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McGovern, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mack, J. D.


Allighan, Garry
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McKinlay, A. S.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.


Austin, H. Lewis
Ewart, R.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Awbery, S. S.
Fairhurst, F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Ayles, W. H.
Farthing, W. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Field, Capt. W. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Follick, M.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Balfour, A.
Foot, M. M.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Barstow, P. G.
Forman, J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Barton, C.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mellish, R. J.


Battley, J. R.
Gallacher, W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mikardo, Ian


Belcher, J. W.
Gilzean, A.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, G. R.


Benson, G.
Gooch, E. G.
Monslow, W.


Berry, H.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Montague, F.


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Moody, A. S.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Binns, J.
Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Blackburn, A. R.
Grierson, E.
Mort, D. L.


Boardman, H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Mulvey, A.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Guy, W. H.
Murray, J. D.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hall, W. G.
Nally, W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Naylor, T. E.


Bramall, E. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Harris, H. Wilson
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, W. H.


Brown, George (Belper)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.


Buchanan, G.
Holman, P.
Parkin, B, T.


Burke, W. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Callaghan, James
House, G.
Pearson, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hoy, J.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W,)
Piratin, P.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cocks, F. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Pryde, D. J.


Collindridge, F.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Collins, V. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Randall, H. E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ranger, J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
John, W.
Reeves, J.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Rhodes, H.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Richards, R.


Corvedale, Viscount
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cove, W. G.
Keenan, W.
Robens, A.


Crawley, A.
King, E. M.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Crossman, R. H. S
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cunningham, P.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Daggar, G.
Kinley, J.
Sargood, R.


Daines, P.
Kirby, B. V.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lang, G.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, F. (Hulme).
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Leonard, W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lever, N. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Levy, B. W
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shurmer, P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Diamond, J.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Dodds, N. N.
Lipson, D. L.
Skinnard, F. W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McAdam, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Durbin, E. F. M.
McAllister, G.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Solley, L. J.




Sorensen, R. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Tiffany, S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Sparks, J. A.
Timmons, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Stamford, W.
Tolley, L.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Walkden, E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stress, Dr. B.
Walker, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stubbs, A. E.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willis, E.


Swingler, S.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Sylvester, G. O.
Warbey, W. N.
Wise, Major F. J


Symonds, A. L.
Watson, W. M.
Woodburn, A.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Woods, G. S.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Weitzman, D.
Wyatt, W.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, George (Gardiff)
West, D. G.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.



Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Grant, Lady
Nicholson, G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Amory, D. Heathcote
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.


Beechman, N. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bowen, R.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bower, N.
Hollis, M. C.
Raikes, H V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hope, Lord J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Byers, Frank
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Carson, E.
Jennings, R.
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, C.
Kendall, W. D.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Channon, H.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Snadden, W[...] M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Teeling, William


Digby, S. W.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Dower, E. L. C. (Caithness)
MacLeod, J.
Wadsworth, G.


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
York, C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.



George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'no'ster)
Commander Agnew and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Mr. Studholme.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

Again considered in Committee. [Progress, 6th May.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Liability to be called up for service.)

3.53 p.m.

The Chairman: It might be convenient to the Committee if I intimated at this stage that I propose to call the Amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Defence—in page 1, line 15, to leave out "eighteen," and to insert "twelve." I think it would also be for the general convenience of the Committee, if the Amendment on the same lines in the name of the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir S. Holmes)—in page 1, line 15, to leave out "eighteen," and to insert "nine,"—were discussed at the same time.

Mr. Cocks: I ask for your guidance, Major Milner. The Amendment to be moved by the Minister of Defence concerns those Members who want the period of service reduced from 18 months to 12 months but there are others who want it reduced to nothing. For the convenience of the Committee, could you say whether we can debate the latter aspect of this Amendment, or whether we must wait until the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Chairman: That question is not appropriate for discussion on this Amendment. We must confine ourselves to the precise terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Cocks: Will such debate be allowed on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Chairman: That is a matter which will arise later and certainly is not one for decision now.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "eighteen," and to insert "twelve."
This Amendment, together with consequential Amendments to other Clauses, has the effect of reducing from 18 months to 12 months the period of whole time service of men called up for the armed

forces of the Crown after the provisions of the Bill come into effect. Without exaggeration, I think I can say that the tabling of these Amendments by the Government has provoked a lively, and even controversial, discussion. Not unnaturally, in this process the period of 18 months has been vested with a rigidity and a sanctity beyond its true deserts. It is entirely true that the Government, for reasons which I am about to explain, changed their mind on the period of whole-time service. On the other hand, it is entirely untrue for anyone to suggest, either that 18 months was visualised as the irreducible minimum for whole-time service under the Bill, or that there was a clear-cut and inescapable answer on what the initial period should be. The decision always had to be based on a balance of conflicting considerations. The Prime Minister when he dealt with this question on 12th November last during the Debate on the Address, indicated that it was far from easy to determine what the period of whole-time service should be. He said:
It is difficult to lay down exactly what the time should be. We should propose to take power that it shall not exceed a period of one and a half years. Whether we shall want that or not depends very largely on the amount of voluntary recruiting and the condition in which the world is settling down. I cannot insist too often on the fact that in all these matters we are dealing with a vast number of entirely unknown factors. However, as at present advised, I consider it will probably be wise to start at one and a half years and to come clown. I would rather not start at a lower rate and have to go up. My hope is that it will be able to come down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430: c. 41–42.]
The original decision to embody in the postwar National Service Scheme a period of 18 months full-time service in the Forces was in fact taken by the Government, after consultation with their expert advisers, in October of last year. In the interval, a good deal has happened. The survey of the economic position of this country, which the Government published as a White Paper at the end of January, and which was subsequently the subject of a three day Debate in this House, brought home to Members and advertised to the country and to the world the seriousness of the current and prospective situation in the economic sphere. However, opinions in the House and the country might vary on the root causes of our present economic problems, there was a


consensus of opinion that only by the most energetic efforts could a healthy and sound economy in this country be restored.
Let me mention a few relevant dates. It was during the Debate on the Economic White Paper that the National Service Bill was published and given its First Reading. Within the next 10 days each of the three Service Departments' Estimates was considered in Committee of Supply; and on 19th and 20th March came the Debate on the Defence White Paper. A further week elapsed, and then the National Service Bill had its Second Reading Debate, on the last day of March and the first day of April.
All these Parliamentary occasions which I have mentioned had this in common: they were, to a greater or lesser extent, the opportunity for Members of this House to consider, and to express their views upon, the defence commitments of this country, the size of the Armed Forces necessary to carry out those commitments, and the all-over provision, in men, money and materials, which the country should provide for sustaining the Armed Forces both for the immediate defence needs of the coming year, and in the years that lie ahead of us when the world will, we hope, find itself in more settled conditions of peace.
From their further study of the economic situation, and from the series of Debates to which I have referred, the Government drew the moral that the long-term demand which a peace-time system of national service in the Armed Forces must inevitably make on the manpower of this country, and, therefore, upon what is probably the most important factor in our economic rehabilitation, must be reconsidered; and reconsidered, first and foremost, in the light of the urgent need for husbanding our strength, and directing it to those requirements which come first in the order of things necessary to put us firmly again on our economic feet. I will even risk quoting to hon. Members opposite the Defence White Paper published last February, because to my mind it puts into one sentence the crux of the problem we are now discussing. In paragraph 7 it reads:
a successful defence policy must find its roots in healthy social and economic conditions.
It goes on to add later in the same paragraph that the Government

are fully resolved to strike a considered balance between the needs of the defence of this country and the urgent requirements of the post-war national economy as a whole.
It is in the exercise of that responsibility for balancing the needs of defence and the national economy that the Government have decided to recommend to the Committee that the period for which men called up under the present Bill should be removed from civil employment for continuous full-time service with the Forces should be 12 months, and not 18, as originally proposed in the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Alexander: I do not propose to be interrupted if I can help it.

Mr. Churchill: Was the right hon. Gentleman not aware of all these facts when he asked us for our support on the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Alexander: If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to restrain himself throughout my speech, I do not think that he would have asked that question.
This decision does not affect the Government's intention to terminate the liability for part-time service, as stated in Clause 2 of the Bill, with the expiration of the seventh year after the beginning of whole-time service. But it does mean that the aggregate of 60 days' part-time service and of 21 days in any year of that service, which liabilities the Government do not propose to vary, will be spread over a period of six years after the termination of a man's whole-time service, instead of over 5½ years, as it would have been had the period of whole-time service remained at 18 months.
Before dealing with the military implications of the Government's decision, I ought perhaps to mention one consequential effect of the reduction to 12 months of the term of full-time service proposed in the Bill. In the White Paper on the call up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948 issued in May last year the actual period of service of men called up during 1948 was specified, such period tapering from two years in the case of men called up in January, 1948, down to 18 months for those called up in December, 1948. The release of those called up during 1948 would have been spread over the first six months of 1950.
In the changed circumstances of the full-time service of men called up after 1st January, 1949, being limited to 12 months, there is clearly ground for reconsidering the periods of service of men called up in 1948 as set out in Command Paper 683I. They would otherwise be serving after the release of those called up in the early months of 1949 under the new Bill, though on the other hand it must be remembered that they are under no liability for reserve service. Nevertheless, it will be the aim of the Government to ensure that so far as practicable all men called up before the new Bill comes into force on 1st January, 1949, will be released from whole-time service with the Forces before the first of the men called up under the Bill. But I should make it clear that it may not be possible to avoid exceptions to this aim in individual cases and for short periods. For example, where it may be administratively impracticable to bring a man home from overseas in time to release him by the due date, or where some unavoidable delay occurs in the provision of reliefs. It should also be understood that periods of non-effective service, such as periods of desertion or imprisonment, will not be taken into account in determining due dates for release.
With that exception, the major provisions of this Bill do not affect the call-up to the Forces, and do not therefore begin to affect the numbers in the Forces, until the beginning of 1949—a date which is still over eighteen months ahead. As the Government have indicated in their Defence White Paper, it is hoped that many of the current overseas commitments of our Forces will have been liquidated before the expiry of that time. What we have every reason to think will still persist are those longer term defence commitments which are concerned primarily with the security of the country, with the safeguarding of commonwealth communications, including the security of our overseas trade routes, and with our obligations to the United Nations. Later in my speech, I hope to deal in more detail with the effect of the reduction of full-time service, proposed by this Amendment, on the ability of the Forces to meet our likely overseas commitments in peace-time.
The point I would make here and now is, that an essential purpose of the proposals in the National Service Bill is to build up a body of trained reserves, who

will stand ready to take their part in our defence in an emergency without requiring the lengthy training which the auxiliary forces needed in 1914 and in 1939. If the international position worsened in the next two years, and if, against all our policy, plans and desires, we were again threatened by imminent war, the Government of this country would have to consider whether the plans they had made for building up the Forces, which in their long-term aspect are largely reflected in this Bill, were adequate for a new and changed defence situation. But on a reasonable forecast of the defence needs of the next few years ahead, the Government are satisfied that the security of the country and the adequate safeguarding of its defence interests are not placed in jeopardy by the change in the Bill proposed by the present Amendment.
This is, naturally, not a matter on which the Government have reached a decision without consulting those who, by the appointments they hold and their professional experience over a lifetime in defence matters, are most competent to advise them on the defence aspects of the change now proposed in the Bill. There has been a good deal of ventilation in the Press of the relationship of His Majesty's Government with the Chiefs of Staff on such matters as the present proposal, and, in case further references are made in the course of the Debate, it might be well if I define that relationship as the Government see it.
I ought perhaps to add that the Prime Minister has approved the terms of the statement I am about to make—[Interruption.] I should not have thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he was Prime Minister, would have regarded it as irrelevant to mention that he had approved something of this nature. The Chiefs of Staff are responsible as professional advisers on defence policy to the Government and it is the practice to seek their advice on all defence matters or matters with defence implications. The Government, of course, always have the absolute right to reject or adopt in a modified form the advice tendered by the Chiefs of Staff. But in order to preserve the confidential relationship between Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff, and in view of the secret and often delicate nature of the questions involved, the advice which the latter give would not normally be disclosed.
In certain circumstances it might be desirable to state specifically and publicly that the advice of the Chiefs of Staff had been sought on some particular question. But such a statement would merely emphasise that the normal routine had been followed and would not in any way be an indication of what advice the Chiefs of Staff had tendered. If the Government proposed to make a statement concerning the advice they had received, the Chiefs of Staff would be consulted beforehand on the proposal itself, and on the form of the statement. The Chiefs of Staff were in fact consulted by the Government over the change proposed in the present Amendment.

Mr. Churchill: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. He used the word "consulted." A great deal turns on that. What did he mean by "consulted"?

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: Exactly what it always meant when the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Chiefs of Staff. The decision to make that change was however that of His Majesty's Government, for which they take full constitutional responsibility.
I come now to certain of the more detailed considerations which the Government had to weigh before deciding on the reduction of full-time service under the Bill. There are two reasons for a system of compulsory national service in peacetime. The first, and, I myself should say, the main reason is the one I mentioned a few moments ago, namely the production of trained reserves readily available for service in the event of a major emergency. The second is to enable national service men, during any period of their full time service with their ships or units to make some contribution to the fulfilment of our defence commitments.
It is of course, self-evident that for these purposes 18 months' full-time service would be more satisfactory to the Services. First, it would provide greater -numbers of national service men in the Forces at any one time than would the shorter period. Secondly, it would admit of national service men giving a greater degree of useful service in units or ships in assisting the regular forces in meeting our current defence commitments. Thirdly, it would undoubtedly admit of a generally higher standard of training being reached

by a national service man before he is transferred to the reserve.
I should like to deal with the last point first. The original proposals in the Bill contemplated 18 months' full-time service, and the Service Departments saw their way clear to attaining within that period what they considered would be an adequate standard of military efficiency for men constituting the reserve. It was, however, always arguable that the object of building up the necessary numbers of trained reserves, ready to take their part in emergency without delay in filling up the ranks of our Defence Forces, could be achieved on the basis of 12 months' whole-time service, followed by adequate refresher training in the succeeding years of liability for part-time service prescribed in the Bill. Training programmes are not rigid; they can be—and, twice in a generation, against the urgent background of actual war, they have been—pruned, condensed and intensified so as to produce the same standard of military efficiency in a shorter length of time. Faced with the urgent economic necessities of this country, the civil population has got to work harder and more intensely if we are to win through to our object of again attaining economic stability. Similarly, the men in the Forces, and those who train them, will have to approach their tasks with a heightened sense of urgency, and will so order matters that little actual training efficiency is lost by a more intense training over a period of 12 months, as compared with a more leisurely spacing of the training programme over 18 months. I would add that I believe that they can do it.

Mr. Drayson: A 40-hour week?

Mr. Alexander: I believe that they can do it. It goes without saying that, just as the training programmes of the Services will have to be intensified for this purpose, so the Service Departments will have to give particular attention to the process of selection and posting in order to ensure that the fullest advantage is taken of the specialised aptitude of a man when he is called up—

Mr. Drayson: Trainees.

Mr. Alexander: —and that broadly speaking his service employment is aligned


as nearly as possible with his civilian trade. In this way not only will there be some continuity of experience for a man during what is a relatively short interlude in his civilian career but the Services for their part will be able to reduce to a minimum the amount of specialised training which they will require to give to fit men for the Service employment to which they will be posted, and for which they will be destined during their reserve liability as against the needs of a future emergency.
The main effect which the reduction of full-time service under the Bill will have is to reduce the period, after completing the ground work of his Service training, which a man will spend applying that training as a working member of a unit or of a ship's complement. I am not in any way going to minimise the great value which accrues from that later period, when a man applies the instruction which he has been receiving and, in combination with his fellows, learns his job as a part of the military machine. [Interruption.] I do not minimise that at all. The aim of the Service authorities will be to condense the earlier part of the period of basic instruction to the greatest extent possible, and to allow the longest practicable time within the 12 months' limit for a man to do effective service as a member of which of the three Services he is in.
I come now to the second of the two objectives of the Bill, that is to enable national service men to make an effective current contribution, in aid of the regular forces, to meeting the defence commitments of the country. As was made clear in the Defence White Paper, and during the debate on it in the House, the regular component of the Armed Forces ran down to a dangerously low level when regular recruiting was discontinued (except in the Navy) during the war years. As the House will know, the Government have embarked in these last few months upon a publicity campaign to attract recruits to regular engagements in the Forces. Conditions of Service and the scale of emoluments, as revised and improved in the last year or two, are such that the Government feel there is a satisfactory career, reasonably well rewarded as compared with civil life, for young men who are attracted to a professional life in the Services, and with the willing help of the Press they have been at pains to set out

the advantages of a Service career to the youth of the country. There has in recent months been an increasing response to this campaign; but the regular forces are still well below their pre-war numbers.
This means that for some time yet, national service men will be required to supplement the regulars in meeting the current defence commitments of the country. The lessened availability of national service men for overseas service will of course mean that a more difficult problem will face the Government in sustaining overseas garrisons at the necessary minimum strength. But there will be a greater reason for the Government to sustain and indeed to intensify their efforts to attract men to regular engagements in the Forces, and that is our intention. One result of the reduction of full-time service to 12 months will be that national service men will normally be sent out of this country only to the nearer overseas stations, mainly to units in Europe, since it would be uneconomic to waste weeks of their limited service on long sea voyages. While Service training must continue to be based on this country and must have here all reasonable facilities, by way of land, etc., required for the purpose, the Services—and most of all the Army—will have to train their national service men to an increasing extent in the Armies of Occupation in Germany. I hope those who have urged this particular suggestion will feel some small satisfaction that circumstances have enjoined upon the Services a training policy which will go some way towards carrying out their desire.
In closing this part of my statement on the military effects of the proposal in the present Amendment, there is one point I wish to state with emphasis. The actual number of reservists who will, after their period of full-time service is finished, be passed to the Reserve, and thus become available to meet the first objective of the Bill, will not in any way be made smaller by the reduction in the period of full-time service. Incidentally, the reduction will mean that the process of building up a National Service Reserve will begin six months earlier than would have been the case with 18 months' whole-time service.

Mr. Frank Byers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he does not make the period of training six months, and so start another six months earlier?

Mr. Alexander: As I have already stated, twelve months is the period selected in which we can use some of them for overseas service.
There will, of course, be a substantial financial saving resulting from the proposed reduction of the period of whole-time service from 18 to 12 months. With an 18 months' period, assuming an intake of about 200,000 men into the Forces each year, the total number so serving at any one time would have been about 300,000. The reduction of whole-time service to one year means that there will not be more at any one moment than 200,000, and therefore the maintenance cost of 100,000 men with the Forces will be continuously saved throughout the period of currency of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: Read it slower.

Mr. Alexander: I usually speak very clearly.

Mr. Pickthorn: You are not speaking, you are reading.

An Hon. Member: We want to know what it is about.

Mr. Alexander: His Majesty's Government have to make a realistic approach to this problem of the peace-time security of this country and the maintenance of its essential defence responsibilities. They were forced to the conclusion—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will wait for the rest of the sentence.

Mr. Eden: We know what it ought to be.

Mr. Alexander: They were forced to the conclusion that only a system of peace-time national service could achieve the necessary standard of defence—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what date?

Mr. Alexander: Perhaps I may finish my sentence? I am entitled to make quite sure, after all that has been said on this matter, that I am perfectly clear and accurate, and also, I am not to be drawn. His Majesty's Government having, as I say, come to that decision, there were two main considerations which they had to

reconcile. The first was to obtain from a system of peacetime national service the essential results for which it was to be introduced, or in other words, to provide for the Forces their minimum foreseeable requirements in manpower year by year, both for the active troops and in reserve. And, secondly, they had to weigh very carefully the optimum needs of the Services against the disadvantages unavoidable in removing appreciable numbers of the youth of the country temporarily from its civilian economy. Their original decision taken after careful consideration of the circumstances as they then presented themselves last autumn, was to ask for 18 months' full-time Service. Five months later—[An HON. MEMBER: "Last March."]—the Government have tabled this Amendment to reduce that period to 12 months.

Mr. Pickthorn: Not too fast.

Mr. Alexander: Like many major decisions of policy in the past which appeared, on the face of it, to have been taken precipitately, the considerations which led to this one had been building themselves up for some time. In the light of the facts of the economic situation and of the views expressed in the successive Debates on the Service Estimates, on the Defence White Paper, and on the Second Reading of the Bill itself, the Government decided that this 18 months period must be reviewed against the great stringency of the resources of the country in the next few years, and more especially as regards its manpower. The Government came to the conclusion that the maintenance of 18 months' whole-time Service from 1949 onwards, however desirable from the point of view of the Services, could no longer be justified in the face of the substantial advantages which would accrue to the national interest from the adoption of the shorter period.
It was clear that the longer period proposed originally in the Bill was a matter of considerable concern not only in Parliament but in the country. It is essential, when a Measure of this kind involving a radical change in established policies, is introduced, that it should not only be necessary in the interests of maintaining the Services to meet their commitments, but also that its essential relation to our defence needs and its priority in relation to other competing demands must be


demonstrably clear to the nation as a whole. Only if it satisfies this last requirement, will the scheme embodied in the Bill obtain ready acceptance by the great majority of the people in the country, and will its young men accept the obligations of the Bill as their bounden duty in the national interest. It is the privilege of democratic governments to lead and, on the other hand, to consider public opinion.
The Government commend this Amendment of the Bill for approval by the Committee as a proposal designed to reconcile the two essential requirements of sustaining the Armed Forces in their role of national defence and of pressing forward with the rehabilitation of our national economy.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I have been looking around for something upon which to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. After some difficulty, I have found at least one point on which I can offer him my compliments, and that is the control of his facial expression, which enabled him to deliver the ridiculous and deplorable harangue to which we have listened, and yet keep an unsmiling face. Indeed, there were moments when I was not quite sure whether he was not taking his revenge on the forces which compelled him to his present course of action, by showing them how ridiculous their case was, and how absurd their position would be when it was presented to the House of Commons. I spoke yesterday of the care and thought given to the social and industrial side of the Bill as explained by the Minister of Labour, and I am willing to believe that equal attention was given to the military side. That is the foundation of the complaint which we make. Let me read what the right hon. Gentleman said, not in the autumn of last year, but on 20th March of this year of grace, 1947. I must read to the House what the right hon. Gentleman said, because I was naturally greatly impressed by it:
At the direction of the Prime Minister, the Chiefs of Staffs in the autumn prepared their considered appreciation of the defence requirements of this country. They put forward their detailed Estimates of the manpower requirements of the three Services as the minimum necessary to implement the defence commitments. The Chiefs of Staffs—I want to emphasise this point strongly—did not produce their considered p10posals without relation to considerations of the available manpower re-

sources of the country and of all the realities of the manpower situation. They presented to the Government a severely practical statement from their point of view of the manpower requirements of the Services, not based on the numbers ideally required to carry out those commitments satisfactorily, but upon an appreciably lower scale on which they thought they could manage … To put the matter in a sentence, I would say that the numbers required by the Armed Forces to carry out the defence commitments of this country have been very carefully screened by the Chiefs of Staffs in their report to the Government.
That is a curious phrase which has crept in. "Sifted" would have been a more natural word, and would avoid any ambiquity with the word "concealed." "Screened" is a modern vulgarism. I continue the quotation:
Those proposals were, in turn, considered in relation to the realities of the economic position. The report of the Chiefs of Staffs was scrutinised with extreme care and in great detail. So was the initial sketch estimates prepared by the Service Departments on the basis of that report, and of the production programmes put forward by the Joint War Production staff. The main burden of that examination fell on myself and my Service colleagues assisted on the production aspect by the Minister of Supply. Discussions subsequently took place in the defence committee and in the Cabinet. As a result very substantial reductions of the original proposals were achieved, with the full co-operation of the Service Ministers and of the Chiefs of Staffs. The Estimate, in its first form, as submitted to me, envisaged a total expenditure of £1,064,000,000 and that figure was eventually cut to £899,000,000, involving a reduction of £165,000,000, or more than 15 per cent. of the original p10posal. Substantial reductions were also achieved in the manpower figure for the Services themselves and for their production. In particular, the size of the Forces, already put by the Chiefs of Staffs below which they regarded as necessary for our commitments, was fixed at a still lower level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1947: Vol. 435, c. 610–11.]
I think I am justified in saying that great and close attention was also given to the military side. This, I repeat, was said not in the autumn of last year, but on 20th March, 1947, and it was the right hon. Gentleman who was speaking. He will not deny that it was he who said that. I have HANSARD here—a real copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Only five or six weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman used those heavy, serious arguments, showing the care with which everything had been examined, and the refinements and judgments at each stage by the natural and normal processes of Parliamentary government, and showing at every point, how the Chiefs of Staffs had produced


what they thought necessary, until finally an agreement was reached on which all could in saying that it was the minimum. I do not think any one can fail to be impressed by the powerful character of the statement made to the House, and we on this side of the Committee were impressed by it. But now the right hon. Gentleman comes down and tells us in elegant language that what he said on 20th March was all "piffle and poppycock." [An HON. MEMBER: "Touché."] I would not dream of using terms like that unless they were quoted on the high authority of a Minister of the Crown.
How can the right hon. Gentleman now bear, with composure, the fact that he used those words, which we thought were used in good faith, which we thought were based on a real solid decision, and conviction, and study of the question on its merits? How can the Prime Minister sit at his side, with all this great responsibility, and now pretend that, owing to a study of the economic position achieved in 48 hours—after 70 or 80 hon. Members below the Gangway had voted against him—the whole scene is transformed? One can only leave these matters to the broad judgment of the country as a whole, and I am quite sure that nothing could have more weakened confidence in the present Administration than the light-hearted way in which they immediately respond to the pressure of their tail below the Gangway. This is a scorpion organisation, with a sting in its tail. How can it be pretended that the new 12 months' system has been thought out carefully, in proportion to our needs? On 20th March the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in the words which I have read to the Committee. He then based himself on the elaborate schemes so carefully prepared in the autumn. Two days later than the Division, he has prepared an entirely different scheme, based on 12 months' service. He must have worked very hard during those 48 hours to make all the tremendous changes and recasting of the immediate and intricate Service problems, in all three Services—all in 48 hours. It is wonderful what great strides can be made when there is a resolute purpose behind them.
The right hon. Gentleman has not concealed the fact that he still thinks that the 18 months was most highly desirable and necessary, but in his statement he

made explaining this somersault, or tergiversation—however one likes to express it—he admitted, nakedly and squalidly, that the reason was political He said nothing about this wonderful revelation of economic difficulties in which our country stood, which came to him on the morrow of the Division in the House. What he said was in the light of the Debate in the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Certainly, but one had hoped that the arguments he put before us for 18 months were based on a long and careful study. That they should have been cast aside and thrown overboard as a result of 70 or 80 Members voting against the Government is, if I may say so, a degradation and disreputability of government which has rarely been seen in this House.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman—I do him justice for this—did not pretend that the Chiefs of the Staff were in agreement with what had been done. He used the word "consulted." Well, one can always consult a man and ask him "Would you like to have your head cut off tomorrow?" and after he has said, "I would rather not," cut it off. "Consultation" is a vague and elastic term. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made no pretence that he was acting on expert advice in this matter, or that he had behind him the authority of the Chiefs of Staff. It is not the business of the Chiefs of Staff to decide these matters. I am a Parliamentarian myself, I have always been one. I think that a Minister is entitled to disregard expert advice. What he is not entitled to do is to pretend he is acting upon it, when in fact he is acting contrary to it. I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of violating that canon. He has made it perfectly clear that this is a political manœuvre for a political purpose, and founded on political arguments and political arguments solely.
I must say I am very sorry for the Minister of Defence. His naked, squalid confession that all design, planning and expert advice were thrown aside, although he had received a 300 majority from the House, of which we contributed 132, lowers his position as Minister of Defence, and I am afraid that he will never be able to retrieve what he has lost. What confidence can we place in his future statements about the defence of the country when it is quite clear that if 70 or 80 pacifists or "cryptos," or that


breed of degenerate intellectuals who have done so much harm, vote against him he is prepared to run away, abandon all his prepared plans, worked out over months, and produce, in 48 hours, anything that can be rushed out to placate his critics?
I have here a quotation from Burke which he used about a Government in bygone days. It does not quite apply; I will show afterwards why it does not. It reads:
They never had any kind of system, right or wrong, hut only invented occasionally some miserable tale for the day in order meanly to sneak out of difficulties into which they had proudly strutted.
The reason why that quotation does not wholly apply is that, in this case, the Government did have a careful system and argument and scheme prepared, and they have cast it away in order to avoid their Parliamentary difficulties. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that people will no more, in the future, believe what he says about national defence than they believe what the Minister of Fuel and Power says about the state of our fuel stocks. It is quite certain that all the Army plans, based on 18 months' service, must be completely altered for 12 months' service. This would apply even more to the naval and Air Force plans.
4.45 p.m.
I am rather distressed by the problem which will now be put to many young men. Although a 12 months' period looks easier, there might be an advantage to be gained both by the State and the individual by having an 18 months' period, which will not be gained from the 12 months' period. There is the case of a young man I know, who was an apprentice electrical artificer, a clever lad, who was called up to the Navy the other day. I asked him how he felt about going. He was rather sorry to leave his job for 18 months but he was very ready to go. In 18 months he could have been bent into the electrical work of a ship of war, whereas to attempt to do that in 12 months would be a sheer loss and waste to the Service, without even getting to the point where he would be able to bring his specialised technical acquirements to the handling of the ever-increasing electrical complications of a warship. The effect of this upon the Navy and upon the Air Force, neither of which have stood in very great need of conscription—

Mr. Paget: How long in war did it take to bend an electrical artificer into the working of a ship? Six weeks.

Mr. Churchill: There is rather an argumentative point about that—what does "bend" mean? I submit to the Committee that there was a chance of making these young men who are called up, and who have to make a considerable sacrifice, much more effective in the technical aspects than they can possibly be in the period of a year's training, the great bulk of which will be used for the more primitive forms of training. Anyhow, it is quite certain that no plan for the 12 months could have been made in 48 hours. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister will admit that. When, I would like to know, did he make up his mind? How long after the Division figures had been published did he take to decide that it must be 12 months instead of 18 months? How was he able to pass this whole vast scheme and system through his head, and make all the consequential changes that were necessary? What happened was simply sheer panic in the face of pressure from a minority, and a minority which had been decisively outvoted by the House of Commons.
The party on this side of the House have suffered a great deal from the taunt of "guilty men," which was made great use of at the Election, and which hon. Gentlemen think they can jeer about today., But nothing I have seen in my Parliamentary experience, and I have a right to speak on this matter, has been equal, in abjectness, in failure of duty to the country, and in failure to stand up for convictions and belief, to this sudden volte face, change and scuttle of which the Prime Minister and his Minister of Defence were guilty. They may never be called to account in the future for what they are doing now, but it is perfectly certain that, henceforward, we have no foundation to rest upon in respect of defence. The title of the Minister of Defence should be changed. He should be called the "Minister of Defence unless Attacked." What a lamentable exhibition he has made of himself—one which must be deeply injurious to the reputation which he built up for himself during the war, when he had different leadership.
I am not going to keep the Committee any longer, because many hon. Gentlemen on this side will go more into the details of this matter. As soon as I heard of the change—it was astonishing, considering we supported the Government in the Lobby with all our strength, that not even a word was said to us on a matter of this kind—as soon as I heard it on the telephone, I issued a statement saying that we must consult together to reconsider our position. We have done so. [An HON. MEMBER: "The boys had told you off."] The hon. Member, no doubt, has been snooping around to try to collect information from the meetings of the Conservative Party. I can assure him that I have not changed my view one-eighth of an inch since this business started. We have come to the conclusion that in spite of this change—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) is very hilarious. He is entitled to be. He is the one who has forced this change on the Government. As a matter of fact, for the purpose of our national defence he ought to be sitting in the place of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Crossman: I supported the Government.

Mr. Churchill: In spite of the change, I say, we shall continue to support this Bill.

Mr. Mikardo: Then what is all the fuss about?

Mr. Churchill: When the Question is put, "That the word 'eighteen' stand part of the Clause," we shall vote for it, in exactly the same way as we did on the Second Reading when we were appealed to so strongly by the Government and the Minister of Defence to support this period of 18 months. Then we relied on the assurances of the Government that the 18 months' period was absolutely necessary for our security and the discharge of our obligations. Nothing having been said to relieve us of that argument, we shall continue to vote as they urged us to vote on the last occasion. We are sorry that His Majesty's Ministers and the 250 Socialists who voted for 18 months' service a month ago, will not have the courage to come into the Lobby with us. They have this consolation, for what it is worth. They will be able to

say to their constituents, "We voted for 18 months because we thought it was right. But please remember—credit us with this—that we ran away as soon as we heard it was unpopular." When this matter is discussed in constituencies I doubt if the principle will be much a matter of controversy, but if it is, it is not credit that hon. Members will gain by their "right about turn" but widespread and deeply felt contempt.
No one has ever suggested that the Liberal Party have acted with inconsistency in this matter. I was, however, very glad to see that the Parliamentary group in the House had been decisively overruled by the Liberal Conference, who considered that the national interest should prevail, and were quite ready to cut themselves off from the chance of picking up a few stray Labour votes at by-elections or on other occasions.

Mr. Byers: Before the right hon. Gentleman makes charges of that nature, he might have the decency to read the resolution which was passed.

Mr. Churchill: I was paying compliments. I was complimenting, first of all, the consistency of the Labour Parliamentary Party in what has long been a tradition of Liberalism. I was complimenting also the larger body outside. with whom they are in relation for the courageous and firm steps they have taken. I hope the presentation of these bouquets will not be attended by such violent reactions as seem to animate my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers).
If Ministers should succeed in defeating their own original proposal of 18 months, we then come to the insertion of the word "twelve." If we were looking at this question from a narrow view of party interests, we could have said "As this Bill no longer represents a considered scheme or the conviction of the Government or of their experts, we will no longer support the Measure, and give the Government an awkward Division." But we think that this matter is above party and above Parliamentary tactics. We support the principle of national service because it sustains the moral health and the safety of the nation. We shall, therefore, vote with the Government for the insertion of the word "twelve" while


entering the strongest protest against the levity, opportunism and panic-stricken cowardice which they have shown

Mr. James Callaghan: We have just listened to a speech which is remarkable for at least two things. First, the right hon. Gentleman announces that his party proposes to vote both for an 18 months' and for a 12 months' period of service. Having achieved that somersault, the right hon. Gentleman then fails to give the Committee any reason at all why he considers that either is the correct period. Throughout his speech, I think it is fair to say, we have not heard a single word about the substance of this Amendment. He did venture an interjection on the subject of electrical artificers and was promptly punctured by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He introduced the matter and he should not complain and say that it is a difficult matter to argue when he is told that the appropriate period for training during the war was much shorter than the 18 months of which he spoke. The interesting thing about the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition is that as a Parliamentarian he is in favour of Parliament having the last word. He said, "I am a Parliamentarian," but then he rebuked the Government for having heeded the word of Parliament and the feeling in the country.

Mr. Boothby: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the fact that the 18 months proposal was carried by an overwhelming majority?

Mr. Callaghan: It is within the recollection of most hon. Members, and it ought to be within the recollection of the hon. Member, that a number of us said that we specifically supported the principle of the Bill. There were some who said that they did not support the period included in the Bill, and others who remained silent on that point. Surely, it is not to be contended that when an hon. Member votes for the Second Reading of a Bill he votes for everything in it. If so, why have we all these Amendments on the Order Paper, some of them admirable Amendments which will improve the Bill considerably?

Mr. Hollis: Mr. Hollis (Devizes) rose—

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I would readily give way to the hon. Member, but I must make some sort of connected contribution, and I cannot allow myself to be led astray so early. The main issue—the right hon. Gentleman was correct in concentrating on it—is, Who is to decide, and having decided, shall they stick to their decision and not alter it? I have always been in favour of a period of 12 months and I have said so on many occasions. There are many Members on both sides of the Committee who are in the same position. Some hon. Members opposite will be extremely embarrassed when they are asked by their leader tonight to support a period of 18 months. If the period had not been altered, I am willing to prophesy now that there would have been some Conservative Members in the Government Lobby, if such an Amendment had been put down. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] An hon. Member opposite says "Nonsense," but there are writings in existence by Conservative Members, which lead one to that conclusion.
The main issue here of course is that the Chiefs of Staff may not have the final word, That theory was all very well in the 19th century, when the call which the Chiefs of Staff made upon the resources of the nation were of such a small character that they could be absorbed by the nation and a bit of slack pulled up to cover what they needed, but in time of total war the needs of the Chiefs of Staff have to be amalgamated with those of other sections of the community. I suppose that the first time that fact was demonstrated was during the first world war when coalminers serving in the front line were recalled in order to serve in the pits. I imagine that that was the first time we departed from the principle that the Chiefs of Staff were entitled to have all that they thought they ought to have. Certainly, during the war, during the inter-war years between 1918 and 1939, and during the recent war, it was clear that the Chiefs of Staff had to take their share, and their share only, of the full ration available to the nation as a whole of our industrial strength.
There have been many occasions, and the right hon. Member has been closely connected with them, when political considerations have prevailed over military considerations. Was Field-Marshal Lord


Wavell wholly in favour of the excursion into Greece, during the recent war?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Churchill: Certainly, he was in favour of it.

Mr. Callaghan: I am bound, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman says, of course, to accept it; but I can only say that there were expeditions mounted, of which I had some knowledge, and about which we were firmly of the opinion that political considerations had prevailed over military considerations, and quite rightly. For example—and here I revert to the expedition into Greece—one of the reasons why political considerations prevailed so strongly at the time was not because of the feeling in the House of Commons and not even because of the feeling in the country, but because we thought it worth while in view of its effect on the peoples of Europe that political considerations should prevail over the military needs of that time. There is every case for saying that on these occasions and in these matters, political considerations must weigh with us, and often prevail. and because of this, I thought it was a little bad for the right hon. Gentleman to get that snarl into his voice when talking about the politicians who had forced this matter on to the Government as though it were an improper thing to do.
A stronger point which can undoubtedly be made is that when a Government have made up their minds they should stick to it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this matter, presumably, was thought out extremely carefully and no doubt a great deal of thought was given to it beforehand. But it is not the first time a Government have changed their minds after giving a great deal of time to an important issue. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember the 1937 Budget. He took some part in discussing it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was Mr. Neville Chamberlain and he introduced the ill-fated and ill-starred National Defence Contribution. A tax of that kind is not suddenly slipped on to the Table. It is the product of the long, careful, and detailed study, that proceeds for months before a Budget is presented. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, indeed he made some comments on the matter in the

Debates, that the tax was withdrawn as a result of representations. That important tax to raise revenue was completely withdrawn, and a new tax substituted after it had been put into the Budget. It was withdrawn because of the representations of the Chambers of Commerce and of the Federation of British Industries. I admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day became Prime Minister between the withdrawal of the tax that met with such resentment, and the introduction of a new tax. The right hon. Gentleman will remember how gentlemen in the City of London formed themselves into N.D.C. clubs and resolved upon "No Darned Contribution" to Tory funds.

Mr. Michael Astor: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Has this matter anything to do with the Amendment under discussion?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is using an illustration for the argument he is presenting to the Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: There is no need for me to labour the point. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, of course, that there is every precedent upon an important issue of this sort for a Government, including Governments with which he has been associated in the past, to change their minds when they come up against a considerable body of feeling. In this case it happens to be the feeling of the people, and not the feeling of gentlemen in the City of London. In short, my argument is that the decision of the Chiefs of Staff must be subject to criticism and open to revision by Parliament.
Then, with that remarkable fertility of language that he possesses, the right hon. Gentleman went on to comment on "this abject, squalid policy of scuttle." Really, I am not sure that he is not failing a little, He has used the words "demoralised," "squalid," and "scuttle" in at least the last three Debates. The richness of his language is such that I am sure he will be able to find new adjectives. For him to evoke cheers from the party on that side when he refers to us in those scathing terms would lead to the impression that that party had never changed its mind. Was that not the party which was returned to maintain the country on the gold standard in 1931, and then came off it a few days afterwards?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that argument any further, as it is irrelevant.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: On a point of Order. In addition to his irrelevance, is the hon. Member in Order in straying into inaccuracy as well?

The Deputy-Chairman: Inaccuracy is not out of Order, but irrelevancy may be. It is not for me to judge inaccuracy in speech. I have called attention to the irrelevancy of the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Callaghan: There is enough evidence for my purpose without going through the record of the party opposite to enable us to say that allegations as to an "abject policy of scuttle"—the words which the right hon. Gentleman used—do not lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth when he leads a party which betrayed Abyssinia—the party of Munich.
I know it is unusual to do so in these Debates, but I would now like to deal with the merits of this matter. Perhaps I might address myself to the period of time now proposed by the Government. I am certain that history will demonstrate that the Government have taken the right decision. I believe there are many sound grounds for substituting a period of 12 months. I would divide those grounds into three—economic, political and military. On the economic side, it is clear that this nation is as fully strained in its resources today as it was at any time during the war when the Chiefs of Staff had to be rationed. We are scratching round for miners; we are trying to find agricultural workers; we are asking women to go back into the textile factories. On the economic side there can be no doubt—it is part of the Government's case, and it has been accepted by the Opposition—that we are strained for manpower, and, therefore, the Government have to make up their mind whether it is more worthwhile to have 90,000 men in the Services for an extra six months than to have them in industry. To that there can be no two answers. The real foundation for the strength of the country lies in its industrial machine, and not in having men wearing khaki. Provided the men are sufficiently trained in the basic arts of war, provided they can be called up quickly, it is far better to have them in the factories pro-

viding this fundamental basis strength than it is to have them sitting in the Army in order to make a prestige demonstration, or whatever it may be, in some foreign capital.
On the political side, there is no doubt that this decision has been welcomed by the country. The Leader of the Opposition said that we had fallen so low and the country knew we had fallen low. Well let us wait and see what Jarrow says today. The by-election there will not be a bad test if the situation is really as deplorable as the right hon. Gentleman's language suggested. On the political side, I have no doubt that by this move we have gained a great deal for the principle of national service. I am in favour of it, and I voted for it on the Second Reading, as did most hon. Members on this side.
On military grounds, there is ample evidence that a man can be trained in the basic arts pf war in the period of 12 months. We know in what a short period of time it was done during the war. We know that when there was pressure on the Services during the war, they were able to train men in a much shorter period than 12 months. We know that the Military Training Act, 1939, laid down a period of six months. If that was not regarded as being adequate in those days, why was six months suggested. I think six months was too short, and that developments during the last war demonstrated that it was too short; but do not let us forget that in 1939 we were going to call up men for six months for military training purposes, and it is now proposed to double that period. In my view, and in the view of many of us who served in the Forces, there is no doubt that basic training and corps training can be done in 12 months, and there can be a margin left over in practically any basic arm of the Services. As regards the specialist arms—for example, the radar operators in the Navy—of course, they cannot be trained in 12 months, but nor could they be trained in 18 months. The pilots of the R.A.F. could not be trained in 18 months, and they will not be trained in 12 months. It is clear that the Navy and the R.A.F. will have to rely mainly upon volunteers, whether the pediod is 12 months or 18 months, and the reduction in the period will make no difference. On the military side there


are others who are better qualified to speak than I am.
This is a political decision. We ought not to shrink from it because of that. I think history will demonstrate that we have taken the right decision in reducing the period from 18 months to 12 months. I believe it demonstrates that the House intends to take not only an active but an intelligent interest in the length of time for which the Armed Services will require these young men. We are reinforcing once again the control of the House over every section outside it. During the war, there was no doubt that certain sections tended to escape from that control. I am delighted that the Government have taken this action. I am certain it is a right action. I am certain they have acted wisely and have not been panicked into this decision by political pressure. There are really sound fundamental reasons for reducing the period from 18 months to 12 months, and on those grounds, we shall be very happy to support the Government.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) taunted the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with the fact that he had advanced no reasons for being in favour either of 18 months or 12 months. The hon. Member then devoted a long part of his speech to political considerations, but, unlike the Minister of Defence, he gave some military reasons for the reduction of the period of service from 18 months to 12 months. I think the Committee will agree that not a single reason was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence from a military point of view for the reduction of the period of service. All that he said was that it should be possible to compress the training. In dealing with this matter, there are two considerations that present themselves to me as being the most important. They are, first, how we are to get the best citizen reserve, and, secondly, how we are to get the most recruits for the Regular Forces. I would like at once to say that the Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir S. Holmes) and myself does not commit the Liberal National Party. It is our Amendment, not the Party's, and the views I

am about to put forward are my own views, and I do not in any way commit my hon. Friends on this Bench.
There is one thing which has to be made clear at the beginning. It would be neither possible nor, I think, desirable, to seek in a period of national service to turn out fully trained soldiers, sailors and airmen. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence said that he had been advised that 18 months would give "an adequate standard of military efficiency." I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that does not mean that they will be fully trained members of the Forces. The training will merely give an adequate standard of military efficiency, adequate, that is to say, for a citizen reserve force. The conditions which I wish to put before the Committee are designed to show that it ought to be possible to obtain that result in a shorter period.
I would like, first, to quote what the Minister of Defence said in winding up the Second Reading Debate:
What is essential, when it comes, if it ever should unfortunately come, to a major war breaking out again, and coming with all the suddenness with which major wars will come in the future, is that we should have adequate forces available which will not require long training.
He went on to say:
The number of men that we have had in our Regular Forces, knowing we shall have to maintain certain commitments such as the occupation of Germany for some time to come in addition to the ordinary duties of the Forces abroad, will be such that we may have to call upon certain sections of those who are called up for training, after they have done 22 months, to do the remainder of their service overseas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1947: Vol. 435, c. 1960–2.]
I submit to the Committee that if these men are sent overseas for so short a period we shall never have a force of any efficiency whatsoever anywhere. A force which is continually contracting and expanding as recruits are put into it and turned over will be no use militarily, and what is more, the right hon. Gentleman knows that at the present time the amount of training that force is doing in Germany is negligible. I was very sorry to hear in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech today that in spite of the reduction from 18 months to 12 months it is still the intention to send men overseas to do part of their training. I would put this to the right hon. Gentleman: has he taken the


necessary measures to ensure that when they do go overseas they will get the training, or will they be doing as they are doing at the present time, losing such military aptitude as they have acquired, and, what is far worse, losing any taste for future military service. One thing that national service must seek to do is to ensure that the period and the quality of training given will be such as to encourage young men to go into the regular Forces or into the volunteer forces when they come out. Unless that is done the National Service Bill will have failed in one of its purposes.
I would like to put forward one or two considerations, which I hope will be answered, to show that if it is only a question of training—if a period of service overseas doing occupational duties is ruled out —a period of 12 months is too much. I say that because, if the efficiency and the nature of the training given is of a sufficiently high standard, we shall probably be able to attract into the regular Forces enough men to compensate for the loss of the six months' curtailment of service. We shall get sufficient volunteers, and it will then be possible to have a far more efficient standing Army than we are likely to have if the Regular Army in Europe acts more or less as a cadre for taking in recruits and turning them over. The shorter and more intensive the training the better. It must also be remembered that a certain proportion of those who will be trained will never make any use whatsoever of their training, but will subsequently enter reserved occupations; it would therefore be useless to have a longer period of training than is strictly necessary.
Another and even more cogent argument is that if the training is simply designed to give a military or naval background, to teach adaptability rather than to teach the use of certain weapons, certain techniques and certain tactics, it will be possible when the time comes, if ever it does, to train them much more rapidly to new weapons and new ideas. What would be fatal would be to do as France did between the two wars and build up a vast bureaucracy within the forces whose function was simply to take in national service personnel and turn them over. It became inflexible; the men were wedded to the weapons they learned, which meant that tactics were wedded to the weapons and made no advance at all with the re-

sult that when the war came. France was fighting the last war all over again.
It would be a surprising paradox if the present Government, in this instance alone, were to level up instead of levelling down; I mean by that, if a man can be trained to an adequate degree of efficiency in a period of nine months in nine-tenths of the branches of the Services, it would in my view be wrong to retain him in the Services another three months simply because in the other one-tenth it was necessary to have a longer period of service. This follows to a large extent on what the hon. Gentleman opposite has just said. There is no doubt that there are trades which it will not be possible to man at all under the National Service scheme. I would like to suggest one or two ideas to cover that. If a branch requires a longer period of training it might perhaps be possible, to start with, only to accept into it those who have done a preliminary period of training in the Sea Cadets, the Army Cadet Corps, or the Air Training Corps. I also think, though this may be an unpopular doctrine, that a man called up for national service should not be paid on the same level as if he subsequently volunteers for the Regular Forces—efficiency pay apart. The advantage of this would be that at the end of the period he would have an additional inducement to stay in the Forces. During the period of national service he is doing a national duty; he is continuing his education; he is learning to defend his country, his home and himself; and after that he should have the opportunity of joining the Forces with a substantial increase in pay.
I would like to refer to the obvious impossibility of training an officer in the period of nine months—even an officer who will continue his training later in the Territorial Army. We should have put down an Amendment on this subject if the Government Amendment to reduce the period of service to 12 months had not been put on the Order Paper in the meantime. In the period of 12 months, however, given real national service training, it may be quite possible to turn out sound officers for the Territorial Army.
There is one essential condition, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, of any reduction of service, and that is that the service must be really efficient and intensive. There is not a little disquiet in the country about the method by which basic training is at present being carried


on. Is it really satisfactory that young men, as soon as they are called up, should be allowed to stay out all night and be allowed to go away for weekends? Comparing that with the system by which an esprit de corps was built up before the war, of an initial training period of some 17 weeks before a man became entitled to leave, there is a very great disparity. If a young man goes to Oxford or Cambridge he is not allowed out all night; why should he be allowed out all night in the Forces? Surely it is necessary to get the same idea of duty and discipline in the Forces as at the university?
All these purposes would be achieved if the right hon. Gentleman were to make it clear beyond any dispute what this period of national service is to be for. Is it to be a period of training only, or is it to be a period partly of training and partly of service abroad? If it is to be both, then what are the proportions?

5.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now getting beyond the matters which are dealt with in the Amendment. These are points which arise on other Amendments.

Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged for your guidance, Mr. Beaumont, but the fact remains that we are considering length of service, and I submit that it is inevitable that we should also consider how that service is to be employed.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. It would not be in Order to pursue that line of argument, because we shall be dealing with that matter later.

Mr. Macpherson: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Beaumont, and I conclude by saying that the reason why we put down the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friend and myself is simply because the right hon. Gentleman has said that it would be the first object of this Bill to create a trained reserve. We contend that, if that is the main object of this Bill, then a shorter period than 12 months is sufficient. It will be for the right hon. Gentleman to say for what additional purposes he requires these men. There may be strong masons for having a longer period, but I will go even further and say that, if there are other duties than training to be performed, a period of 18 months is not

sufficient, and, in my view, the period should either be shorter than 12 months, or more than 18 months.

Mr. Blackburn: I must say that it strikes me as a little surprising that the Opposition should have decided to take this action in relation to voting for 18 months, because the burden of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was—and I should have thought he said it with some justification—that they could no longer rely upon the assurance given to them by the Minister of Defence on a previous occasion. How can the party opposite vote for 18 months on the basis of an assurance which they say they can no longer accept? It seems to me to be entirely illogical. If they adopted the logical course, they would abstain from voting.
I agree that there is some doubt in the minds of hon. Members of my party who voted for 18 months and are now asked to vote for 12. It is quite true, and I entirely accept it, that they did not vote for 18 months as such. They voted upon the principle of the Bill, and it is logical for them to say, "We are voting for this Bill on Second Reading, but we will put down Amendments to it, and, if necessary, we are prepared to vote against the Government." That position is perfectly logical. It seems to me that the really serious aspect of this matter has been brought out by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). I see that my hon. Friend is not in his place at the moment, but I' warned him that I was going to refer to what he said, and perhaps his private secretary, the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg)—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Coventry made a speech which was accepted by the newspapers as a most important speech and one which affected the position of the Government. The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), whose ability and whose qualities of good humour and courage I have admired on many occasions, I thought made a rather serious error in his speech, because he more or less admitted that the Government had acted under political pressure. I do not think that that was the burden of the speech of the Minister of Defence, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that he de-


fended this new proposal upon its merits, and not upon the grounds of having acted under political pressure.
The hon. Member for East Coventry, in his speech on a previous occasion, said that foreign policy and defence policy were separate problems. There is no truth whatever in that statement, which is completely contrary to what the Prime Minister said when he told us that foreign policy and defence policy are aspects of one and the same policy. I hope that we shall get a very clear statement later in the Debate on this question of need. I do not really know where either party stands at the present time. Are the Government in favour of national military conscription for its own sake or not? Is the party opposite in favour of national military conscription for its own sake or not? As I understand it—

Colonel Wigg: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to me—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman, in these circumstances, is in Order.

Mr. Blackburn: I am grateful, Mr. Beaumont. The hon. Member talked, for instance, about reserves, and the period for which it is necessary to train men, but I think that is irrelevant. I put this to the Minister. Assuming that the Government accept the view that they want to get back to the voluntary system, is it the case that, if the Armed Forces can be reduced to such numbers as are obtainable by the voluntary system, the Government will be anxious to do that at the first available moment? I hope the Minister of Defence does not imply that, because, in my own case, I have been placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. I am fortunate in possessing the largest single divisional Labour Party of any hon. Member in this House—a party with 3,600 individual members, and I am going to meet that public opinion on this question. It is a divisional Labour Party which has already been very much—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the general question of conscription, which has been settled. We are discussing whether the period of service shall be 18 months or 12 months.

Mr. Eden: With all respect, Mr. Beaumont, the hon.

Member is referring to a speech which reviewed the whole principle of national service.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not wish to argue the point, but I say that the principle of conscription has been accepted on the Second Reading. We are now discussing whether the period shall be 18 months or 12 months.

Mr. Churchill: Would it not be right for anyone to argue that conscription was more or less objectionable according to whether it was for 12 months or 18 months?

Mr. James Hudson: Is it not a fact that the divisional Labour parties up and down the country are completely obsessed at this moment by this question of 12 or IS months,, and that it is upon that issue that a great deal of opinion and pressure are now being used? Is it not in Order, therefore, on this matter, to raise arguments of that sort?

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot have a Debate on conscription as such. We must keep to the point of the Amendment, which is a question of 12 months or 18 months.

Mr. Blackburn: I will try to keep to that point. At a meeting of this divisional Labour Party, it was carried by 350 votes to 12 that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Brendan Bracken: The Commissar should behave.

Mr. Blackburn: —such a period of conscription as was necessary in order to enable the Government—to fulfil their foreign policy, and that, surely, is the essential point, and, I am bound to say, seems to me a far more sinister aspect of the whole matter. It is felt by many people that here we have had a surrender on defence policy to the critics of the Government on foreign policy: That, is something which will not be tolerated in any circumstances.
I want to emphasise how small is the minority which claims to have forced this concession. First of all, there are a large number of hon. Members who are sincerely opposed to conscription in any form, and then there are the pacifists. I have no quarrel of any kind with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Lady wood (Mr. Yates), who has just come in, and who is a constituent of mine, has


earned the great respect of our divisional Labour Party by the way in which he has stood by his principles in this matter from the very beginning. But a substantial number of Labour Members voted against this Bill because the party has historically stood against conscription and militarism as such. Now we get a pressure group which seeks to play the game of power politics. This small group says to the Government, "There are 70 or 80 Members who are going to vote against you anyway. We will add another 20 or 30, or whatever the figure may be, to that number, and we will force you by a tiny minority, with whom the overwhelming majority of the party and the country are in entire disagreement, to do our will." The serious aspect of this—

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Member saying, in fact, that the majority of the party is still in favour of 18 months, has always been in favour of 18 months, and is now being dragooned by this small body to accept 12 months?

Mr. Blackburn: I am saying that the party, as a whole, is in favour of such a figure in the Armed Forces as is necessary to implement our foreign policy and that when the Minister of Defence came to this House and said that, in order to fulfil our overseas commitments for defence, he needed 18 months' conscription, the overwhelming majority of the party and the country were behind him, as they were in the vote, and will continue to be.

Mr. Mellish: There are many hon. Members in this House who do not belong to the pressure group and yet who welcome the Government's change of plan, and that fact should be pointed out to the hon. Member.

Mr. Blackburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am hoping that we will get a clarification of this issue. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends are suggesting that I should join the other side. May I say that my position is that I regard the Communists and the Tories with equal disfavour, and that I stand between the two? Some of the hon. Members sitting on these benches are far from steering that middle course. Indeed, it is a most significant fact that three hon. Members who are sitting together, the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt),

the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), and the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg), all spoke as though they regarded military conscription as a good thing in itself. I regard that fact as extremely interesting because, in relation to Socialism, it is most important for us to combine individualism with Socialism. I cannot understand the mind of a person who believes that military conscription is a good thing in itself. It is not. It may be necessary for us to have it—and I believe that, at the moment, it is—and for that reason we will support the Government on it. On 31st March, the Minister of Labour said:
We hope that it may be possible—as I shall explain, there is power in the Bill—to shorten the period of service. There are two ways in which that may be achieved. First, we may find that the campaign to attract young men will be more successful than it has been. Many young men called up to do their 18 months' service may find the Services so attractive to them that they may desire to continue in them, and to continue for a fixed period longer than their 18 months. Secondly, our overseas defence commitments may be so changed as to make it unnecessary for us to have the Forces which we now think are going to be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1947: Vol. 435, c 1679, 1680.]
On the face of that, there must have been an overall reduction in the estimates for our Armed Forces as, otherwise, this decision would not have been taken.
5.45 p.m.
I am anxious about that, and I hope that we shall have a clear-cut statement that, in no way whatever, are we going to fail to produce the forces all over the world which will enable us to be loyal to the United Nations organisation, and which will prevent the real danger which causes us to have Armed Forces. We do not need Armed Forces today because we are going to be involved in a war. In my mind, there is no idea of a huge war. That is not the technique. The technique today is ideological infiltration, followed by the coup d'état. For that purpose, it is necessary to have troops in various parts of the world in order to ensure that the principles of freedom will continue to be vindicated, if necessary, by British troops who understand the reason for which they are called upon to fight. Therefore, I hope, as I have already said, that we shall have a clear-cut statement that, whatever reduction may be decided upon, will be


reviewed, if necessary, to make sure that the foreign policy of the Government is fully implemented.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) will forgive me when I say—and he has many admirers on all sides of the House—that I am personally convinced that our present Foreign Secretary has the support of public opinion in this country as no other Foreign Secretary has ever had during the last 25 years. All sections of the community support him, and it would be intolerable if his hand were in any way to be weakened. He is in a very unfortunate position. But, whatever happens, let him at any rate be backed as far as possible by the willingness of each one of us to serve the country in what is still an hour of dire emergency.
I believe that the greatest needs of Britain today are vigour, enterprise and imagination. If this decision means that we shall be able to have young men engaged on non-productive activity for six months less, I welcome the decision, and shall be very glad to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Government. Let us make sure that the true voice is heard of the broad masses of the people of the Labour Party who have fought in many ways, and who will continue to stand for the principles of liberty which we have enshrined in the heritage of this House and of our British civilisation.

Brigadier Head: I hope that I shall in no way embarrass the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) when I say how strongly I agree with him when he says that there are few hon. Members in this House who like conscription for its own sake. It is important that we should remember why this Bill was carried through the House some five weeks ago, and why we on this side voted with the Government on that occasion. That was done through no love of conscription for itself. It was known that this Measure was untraditional, economically very embarrassing to the country, and also unpopular. But I believe the reason why hon. Members on both sides supported the Government on that occasion was because they felt that here was a subject which was, to some extent, technical, and about which the Cabinet alone had access to the full facts and data by which the situation as a whole could be judged. I think that few, if any,

hon. Members were wedded either to conscription or to the period of 18 months. Hon. Members felt that they had to trust the Government in this and to force the Chiefs of Staff to reduce the period to the absolute minimum consistent with safety. That is the point.
It seems that the Amendment which has been placed on the Order Paper today poses two questions; first, has any new factor arisen since then to justify the reduction by six months of what was previously said to be the minimum safe period; and, secondly, is the period of 12 months practical and sound trom the point of view of the Armed Forces? So far as the first point is concerned, I listened very carefully to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, and he referred to the various reasons which had brought about this change. He mentioned the economic situation; but I do not think the situation has undergone such a drastic change as to justify this sudden reversal of policy. With regard to the foreign situation, to which the hon. Member for King's Norton referred, there again I do not think the Foreign Secretary would suggest for a moment that in flying back from Moscow he was deserving of an escort of doves. It seems to me that if the foreign situation is altered, it is more likely to be altered by this very change.
The right hon. Gentleman referred also to the fact that he had made a very close study of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I read that Debate very carefully before today. I read it through again, and it struck me that although there were many interesting points made, there was no single new factor which could materially affect the situation. There were the views of certain hon. Members—in my opinion, rather naive views—that the best way to make the Russian bear like the British bulldog was to pull out all the British bulldog's teeth. There was the speech by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), which has been often referred to, in which he showed considerable versatility, but I cannot see that it established any absolute reason for this sudden change. I have searched conscientiously to see if any new factor can be found, and I genuinely feel that, so far as this change has been made by the Government, it has perhaps been made in the light of the Debate, that is


to say, of the figures which indicated how Members went into the Lobby or abstained.
Turning to the more practical side of the matter, is this period really feasible from the point of view of the three Services? The right hon. Gentleman, very properly, said that although the Chiefs of Staff had been consulted, it was, of course, for the Government to make their own decision. It seems to me that that is very right and proper, but what the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned was that, although, naturally, the Chiefs of Staff were consulted, only some few months ago machinery—namely, the Ministry of Defence—was set up for dealing with a situation exactly like this. In the White Paper on Defence Organisation it was stated that there should be a committee to look into all large-scale personnel questions affecting the three Services, in order that they should be co-ordinated and the maximum economy obtained. That committee was to have the Minister of Defence in the chair, and as its members the three Service Ministers and three principal personnel officers. Was that committee ever consulted when this change was contemplated? I think the answer to that question is "No," and that fact is pretty common knowledge. This does not sound to me like consultation, but more like dictation.
On both those questions it seems to me that no case has been made whereby any Member, taking stock of his conscience, can reverse the decision he was asked to make by the Government five weeks ago—namely, that 18 months was the minimum period of training required for the safety of this country. Nor has such a case been made, from the point of view of practicability, bearing in mind the arguments which were adduced in favour of the period of 18 months. Very recently the Minister of Defence gave two main reasons why 18 months was essential. The first was that this was the only means whereby an adequate number could be retained in the Armed Forces to keep up their strength as a whole, the reason being that during the last six months of their service there would be many men serving within formations and ships, and so forth. With this new period of a year, not only will those people not be available, but a very large proportion of the Regular Forces will spend their time training

cadres of people who have been called up. The other argument for the i8 months' period was that only after 18 months' training would there be sufficient numbers of people thoroughly trained and available for rapid call up in the event of emergency.
We have not the full facts to judge whether 18 or 12 months is the correct period, but may I take two examples from my own and, perhaps, rather out-of-date experience? We have been told by the Minister of Defence that practically the whole of the air defence of Great Britain, and thus of London, will be carried out by the territorial forces. They have got to be trained. The majority of their training will be done during that call-up period. The Regular Army will have a very small proportion who will be doing that particular form of defence training, because the majority will be Territorials. Therefore, only a small minority can be trained in that year. They will have only a year to learn the most technical form of warfare, and, surely, of all the forms of defence, the air defence of this country is the one that has got to be in the highest state of readiness? I cannot see that that state of readiness will be achieved in a very technical branch of the Service within a period of 12 months.
The right hon. Gentleman has already said there will be two Territorial armoured divisions. Armoured divisions are highly technical formations. During the war, for one year, I served in a fairly responsible position with General Leese, when we had to convert an infantry division into an armoured division. We started with trained and disciplined troops, and they comprised a formed division. We had the whole of the impetus of war to assist our training. At the end of a year, that division was not fully trained and was certainly barely fit for war. Is the Secretary of State for War or the Minister of Defence going to tell me that with raw recruits in the Service for 12 months, plus these occasional periods of training, we shall be able to have two armoured formations which will be fit for war in anything under nine months or a year? I cannot for these two reasons feel that on the practical side this period is adequate.
It is particularly unfortunate that this inadequate period of training for the defence of the country has been suggested,


in view of the fact that so recently as some three months ago, in a shower of good will from every side of the House, there was set up the Ministry of Defence. It was obvious from the speeches of many Members that we all felt that in this new organisation there was something which would hold the balance of the eternal conflict between the requirements of peace and the tendency to draw away men from the Services, quite naturally, into the economic and social structure of the country; and that thereby we should control that tendency if it got beyond the safety margin. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House felt that by taking up this high position, the right hon. Gentleman was holding what might almost be called a public trust bestowed for the nation's safety, and that here, at last, we might have some organisation which would ensure that we should avoid a repetition of that disaster which has so often led to a preliminary humiliation of the British Army in the past.
It is a gloomy fact that after all those high hopes, and all those good wishes from all sides of the House, at the first engagement the right hon. Gentleman appears to us to have yielded in this way. There he was, five weeks ago, the right hon. and most nautical Gentleman in command of his first ship, the 18-months Conscription Bill, which he had to pilot through this House, through the channels of Westminster. There he stood on the deck, and beside him was his chief mate, the Minister of Labour. He looked so resolute, and, although some of us thought that his handling of the ship was a little clumsy, he looked as though he was businesslike and meant to get it through. How wrong we were. Can we not imagine how, during that passage, all the time he must have been scanning the political horizon for the least sign of danger, saying to his mate, "What is that I see over there, blowing and spouting?" His mate says, "It's all right. It's only 'whales'" He would then turn and say, "That is most dangerous. 'Whales' might overturn this frail vessel. Then what's this I hear? Trouble with the crew?" The mate replies, "Oh, it's all right, sir. It's only some fellow travellers." He then says, "Oh, most dangerous. They might cut a hole from within. Then what's that I hear just below the gangway?" The reply comes, "That's only the gushing of sea cocks, sir." Whereupon he gives the

order, "Turn it off at once." After the strain of this eventful passage through the House, the vessel comes into calm waters once more. But the thought of a return passage was too much for the right hon. Gentleman, and in a panic he abandons ship in favour of a smaller unseaworthy and under-powered vessel.
6.0 p.m.
He now appears before us once again in this new ship. He is again on the bridge, and below him the crew are softly cursing and trying to make this under-powered vessel go. Luckily, perhaps, those curses are not heard by us today. But the right hon. Gentleman shouts to us, "I consulted the crew," and then, towards the end of his trip, as he comes up to the gangway a signal breaks out from the masthead, "Alexander expects that every rebel this day will do his duty." What a tattered travesty of Nelson. We may laugh at all this, but there may be here the makings of so much trouble and difficulty for this country in the future. The right hon. Gentleman started with universal trust, and he inherited an organisation with a bright reputation. It is a melancholy fact that in him the Government have found somebody who has consented to unlock the door from within. By doing that the right hon. Gentleman has joined a very inglorious company. His sin perhaps is small, compared with others of that company recently. I agree there are many worse men in the company, but that type of man who sells out under pressure has recently been typified by one who gave his name to all. He was a Norwegian, and his name was Quisling.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) has, with the great experience which we expect from the bevy of brigadiers who sit on that side of the Committee, gone into the technical question of whether a training period of 12 months can be held to be sufficient. I wish to refer to what has, in fact, actually been done in training our men during the period of the war and immediately afterwards. It may have escaped the notice' of hon. Members opposite that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence gave a very interesting reply to a Parliamentary Question on the periods of corps training in 1943 and at the present time. The hon.


and gallant Member for Carshalton referred to armoured divisions. Looking at that answer to which I have just referred, we find that in 1943, at a time when we were training our armoured divisions for the North-West European campaign, the period of corps training we were then giving to men who had to face the panzer divisions in Normandy Was a period of 26 weeks.

Brigadier Mackeson: Nonsense.

Mr. Hughes: I refer hon. Members to the facts as stated.

Brigadier Mackeson: That is quite inaccurate. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to individual training in training regiments of armoured formations. Nobody on the Government Front Bench would pretend—and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say so now—that a man with 26 weeks' training is fit to take his part in an armoured fighting vehicle in battle. That is quite a different matter.

Mr. Hughes: The figure to which I am referring is, of course, the period in corps training units, following the initial 10 weeks in the primary training centre. The point I am making is, that if that period of basic training in the primary training centre and in the corps training centres is examined, the great majority of men in the Army will have completed this training in a period of, not 18 months or 12 months, but of six months or less—considerably less in very many cases. In fact in the infantry, which took 18 per cent. of the men called up last year, the period of corps training takes 10 weeks, following the primary training period of six weeks. Therefore, at the end of 16 weeks the men pass into Regular units, and will be available for service in units overseas. In the Royal Artillery, which takes 15 per cent. of the present intake, the present period of corps training takes from eight to 19 weeks; a slightly shorter period than they were given in 1943. Therefore, for all the main arms of the Service it is quite inaccurate for hon. Members opposite to say that a period of 12 months does not allow for an adequate period of training.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Surely the Minister of Defence said that he sought the advice of the Chiefs of Staff in this matter, who are real experts, and not the

hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) or any other hon. Member. It was eventually decided that 18 months' initial training would get an adequate reserve, professionally trained, which was necessary. Is the hon. Member now suggesting that is incorrect?

Mr. Hughes: No. The advice of the Chiefs of Staff has been taken by Members of this Government and the previous Government in determining the periods of training which have actually been given to men who served in the Forces during the war and after. The periods of training to which I have been referring are the actual periods of training that the Chiefs of Staff have been giving our men for the last five or six years. Of course, these periods of training have been determined by the advice of the Chiefs of Staff.

Brigadier Head: On 28th March a very long and detailed statement was made in answer to a Question, in which the right hon. Gentleman detailed why 18 months was the minimum period for all three Services.

Mr. Hughes: I am well aware of that answer. The argument I am putting forward is, that the initial period of training for the great majority of the Army—and to some extent of the other Services—is complete in a period of six months or less. For the remaining period the men pass on into the ordinary life of a unit. It is true that the Chiefs of Staff have argued in the past that a man needs 12 months or longer in a unit before he is adequately experienced, but they will now no doubt find it equally possible to argue that the six months or more they will now have is adequate for peacetime needs. The 18 months' period was also put forward on the assumption, not only that it was the period required to train these men, but also that there would be a good balance for service to fulfil our general occupation commitments overseas. Therefore, the 12 months' period does not seriously affect the training of these men at all.
Obviously, in some trades, where greater experience and a higher technical level are needed, 12 months or 18 months are insufficient. If we are thinking in terms of commissioned rank, 12 months or 18 months are insufficient. But for the trained man, the highly skilled man, and


the officer, surely we should not expect to look to the period of conscription of whatever length it may be. In some cases, where men have comparable experience in industry, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said, we may be able to bend their industrial experience to military, experience. But for the most part it is quite obvious that, with military weapons and military technique developing all the time, to form cadres of really experienced people 12 months or 18 months full training, and then a little part-time training, is quite insufficient The cadres will come from the Regular Army, not from the conscripted men at all. The only effect of this change from 18 months to 12 months will be six months less time for our conscripted men to take part in fulfilling our military commitments overseas.
Really, are hon. Members opposite arguing that six months' service from something like 100,000 men a year is such a radical change of principle as they are trying to make out? My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) argued that six months' less service from 100,000 men a year was going to upset the whole tenor of the Government's foreign policy. Was there ever a bigger case of special pleading? In any case, does my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton—I am sorry he is not still here—really feel that the strength of the Government's position in world affairs is going to rest upon partially trained conscripts of the numbers I have indicated? The strength of this country in world affairs at the present time is going to depend more on its industrial strength than on the numbers of men in uniform it can parade abroad. From the point of view of our influence' in world affairs, we need much more the training and production of these men in industry, in coal mining, than we need their military service abroad. This Amendment, which the Government have so wisely accepted, is going to strengthen, and not weaken, their position abroad.
Hon. Members opposite talk about being good Parliamentarians and good democrats, and then they come forward to criticise the Government because the Government pay some attention to the state of feeling in the House of Commons. This decision of the Government was taken not because of the attitude of a small number of Members who voted against the Government; and not only because of the

attitude of those Members who supported the principle of the Bill, but indicated in the Debate that they felt that 12 months was a preferable period to i8. It was taken after a review of the economic situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "In two days."] It was quite clear from the quotation that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford read out, that when my right hon. Friend was making the speech from which he quoted he was referring to events that had taken place last October. It was clear at the time of the Second Reading Debate, that large sections of the community, and industry as a whole, were extremely perturbed at the idea of the taking away of our young men for 18 months from our national effort at reconstruction. In view of that, this decision has been very rightly taken, I am convinced, and those whom I represent are convinced, that this decision to reduce the period shows the strength of a Government who are prepared, on a review of the position, to change their mind.

6.15 p.m.

Brigadier Rayner: I agree with hon. Members on this side that the Minister of Defence retired in confusion just before Easter to a position he finds it impossible properly to defend today. I agree with hon. Members on this side that he retreated in confusion, not in the face of the enemy, but in the face of a disconsolate portion of his own troops. I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) than when he suggested that that retreat will not have some effect on international confidence in us. I think that that international confidence by this action of the Government—like so many other actions of the Government since they came into power—has been considerably reduced; and as we are a country which depends more on international confidence than almost any other country in the world I think that is a matter of grave concern. I have had four years' service in a technical corps—longer, possibly than any other Member of the Committee—and I should like to say, as a retired officer who commanded at one time a training establishment, and various technical units, and entirely on my own experience, that it is quite impossible to transform a man into a trained soldier and a tradesman in the course of 12 months. I also say, speaking as a


retired Regular soldier, that I have checked and cross-checked with some of my Regular serving friends the figures given by General Martin in the "Daily Telegraph" not long ago, when he drew the conclusion that our old prewar training machine produced an active, available Army of 220,000 men, and that under this Bill a training machine of about five times the size will produce an active, available Army of about half that. In spite of what the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton said, I very much doubt then whether we can meet our commitments fairly.
I shall go into the Lobby tonight to vote against this Amendment for four main reasons. First, I believe that when we reach 1950 those extra 58,000 national service men which we should acquire under 18 months' service would be very valuable in swelling our Regular Army, thus enabling us to meet our commitments which will still be wide ones. Second, I believe that these extra men would increase our security, for in international affairs, as in everyday life, a stitch in time often saves nine; and a few extra men on the spot would be able to prevent a situation from developing which, if it developed, would require the call-up, or the partial call-up, of our Reserve Army. Third—and this is rather a different point—I believe that that extra six months would give 58,000 of our young fellows a chance of serving abroad in the Empire, or elsewhere in the world, before they settled down to the humdrum business of ordinary life, and that the experience they would thus enjoy, added to the ordinary advantages of Army education, would be worth far more than one year added to the school-leaving age.
In view of what the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has said, and what one or two of my hon. Friends on this side have said, I must be in the minority, because I believe in national service as national service. I made my maiden speech in this House some years before the war, and in it I asked for national service. I suggested that the young men of this country were getting slack, sloppy and unfit, and that they compared extremely unfavourably to the young men of several other nations. I suggest that today, in view of the fact that we have so much of something for nothing, and in view of the fact that soft Govern-

ment jobs are being multiplied in every direction, national service will again be a very good thing for the young men of this country. I withdraw nothing from what I said in my maiden speech those many years ago. After months and months of careful thought, and after referring strategic and other questions to the Chiefs of Staff, who, in their turn, must have referred these questions to their technical advisers, the Government, to our admiration, delivered in this House an 18-month baby, and then, 48 hours later, they came to us and told us it was really only a I2month baby. We had already seen it, however, and they cannot be surprised if we refuse now to accept the explanation of these unnatural parents. I have always been an admirer of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, but I think he must have felt a bit ashamed of himself when he stood up at the Box this evening. For my part, I shall go into the Lobby against him with the greatest enthusiasm.

Dr. Haden Guest: It is my intention to come back to the Amendment, and not to explore the interesting vistas opened up to us by various Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) made it quite plain that he based his charge against the Government on the fact that there was no time to make the necessary changes in the staff plan consequent on the alteration of the period from 18 to 12 months, and that was implied also in many of the speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite have forgotten the elementary fact that the Bill comes into operation in 1949 and that we have the time from now until then in which to make the necessary arrangements. There is plenty of time for this to be done. I would point out that the staffs of all military formations have been constantly engaged upon making changes with regard to the very rapid demobilisation run-down. They have been doing this about every three months. I have visited most of the areas in which troops are deployed in the last seven months, and I have seen the manpower budgets, and have been at the discussions on the arrangements for the future, and also at the discussions whether or not it would be advisable to have conscription for 12 or 18 months. Generally speaking, there has been a feeling that 18 months is a more con-


venient period for service than 12 months, and that, I think, is all that it amounted to. I am not saying that having made a decision we should necessarily change it, but the point is that there is now ample time to make arrangements for an adequate defence force. It is not a question of whether there should be national service for 18 or 12 months, but whether we can make our country safe with the 12-month period.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I think my right hon. Friend pointed out that there was no time during that 48 hours for the Government to produce a considered plan, that is to say, whether it was practicable to give the necessary training in 12 months, and how the training should be carried out. It was not the point which the hon. Member is making.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be making a speech.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I was pointing out the distinction between what the hon. Member is saying and what was said by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member is trying to show that there is time to produce a plan between now and 1949, and that it is, therefore, perfectly all right for the Government to change their ideas.

Dr. Guest: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, but surely he knows that alternative plans are made for any eventuality, and that not just one plan is made—I hope that was not the case when he was in a ship. There are always these alternative plans, which can be put into operation according to the final decision taken.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: For conscription?

Dr. Guest: The right hon. Gentleman had better address that question to the Minister of Defence. For my part, I should be extremely surprised to hear that there was no alternative plan, because that is the usual routine in these things.

Brigadier-Low: May I ask a question?

Dr. Guest: Yes, if it is only a question.

Brigadier Low: Is the hon. Member aware that on 25th April the Minister of Defence wrote to me saying:

Our training plans will now have to be overhauled in order to get the maximum benefit out of 12 months
Does that show that an alternative plan was already in being?

6.30 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I am not going to attempt to interpret the correspondence between my right hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member, but what my right hon. Friend has written there is quite consistent with having alternative plans. He was not anticipating that the Conservative Party would attempt to get a party advantage from a matter of this kind, and was not, therefore, weighing his words with that in mind. It is quite clear it is possible to get all that is necessary in that period of 12 months. I should like to ask the Minister of Defence to give some information additional to that which he gave in the original Debate. There is clearly going to be a difference of emphasis on this matter with regard to the employment of troops. We shall want larger numbers of Regular troops. I would like to know, from the Minister of Defence, whether he is also contemplating a larger number of Colonial troops for stationing in places like Malaya and Ceylon? I am endeavouring to bring the Debate back to the practical and extremely important matter which we in Parliament have to decide—what is to be our defence? It is clear that in 12 months men will not be available for much overseas service except, of course, for places like Germany and nearby fields, and in Italy, and so on, if we are still using troops there. But at the same time we should not forget that troops can now be carried considerable distances in a very short time by air. Further, there is an advantage of not sending young men of 18 overseas too much. It is much better not to send them overseas until they are are least 19—

Captain Marsden: How is it possible to train them for the Navy without letting them go overseas?

Dr. Guest: I do not intend to be drawn into a technical discussion of that kind, because I do not pretend to be an authority on naval training, although I understand that it is possible to train men without them having to make long journeys overseas.
There is also the immensely important factor that if we adopt the 12 months'


period we shall have much less interference with industry. It is much more important for us to be firmly established on the industrial front than that men should have an extra few months' training.
Reduction of the period of service from 18 months to 12 months compels us to examine our overseas commitments very carefully. I am quite sure that our present overseas commitments could do with a careful overhaul, to see how far it is necessary to keep them going. Our immediate commitments overseas may be strategic, or consist of police duties, such as looking after dacoits in Burma, or putting down disorders in Malaya.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the dacoits on the opposite side of the Committee?

Dr. Guest: I trust it will not be necessary to have any more forces to look after them than the Serjeant at Arms has at his disposal. It is necessary for us, in considering the deployment and use of our Forces, and their length of training, to take note of the report of the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations, which has just been published. We must consider that report to see whether we cannot turn away from the purely military commitments of the ordinary defence variety to commitments in the directions of a United Nations World Police organisation. It is desirable that this should be done in the interests of peace, and that we should cut down the period of training of our Forces so far as is reasonable and safe. I think it is both reasonable and safe to make the period 12 months in the interests of production, and of world production. I hope that, tonight, Members opposite will not spend too much time in trying to undermine the confidence of the country in the decision which has been taken by the Government. That will do no good from the standpoint of the country, and it is very undesirable that it should be done. We have time now to make all the plans that are necessary, and I hope some constructive proposals will be made in the Debate by Members opposite. We have time to make plans which will make our Forces stronger than before, and I sincerely hope that for the rest of this Debate Members opposite will cease their party bickering, and get down to realities

Mr. Michael Astor: I cannot reply to the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) because, although it was delivered with sincerity, I did not glean any more from it than I did from the speech of the Minister of Defence. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) produced an interesting line of thought when he suggested that our Forces were conscripted and trained for police services and not primarily to resist an invasion of this country. I think it is a pity that it was he who gave us that information, and not the Minister himself, because it is extremely pertinent that we should know the general framework of our general defence plan.
In my opinion, in being asked to vote for conscription for 18 months or 12 months, we have not been given adequate information by the Minister on which to base a decision. He came to the House in March, and asserted most emphatically that the period should be 18 months. Now, apparently, 12 months is sufficient time in which to produce the trained man. If we take the right hon. Gentleman's words at their face value, let us assume that 12 months will produce a partially trained soldier, airman, or sailor. What the right hon. Gentleman will have then is a large number of partially trained military, air, and naval personnel. Is that really what we want? The hon. Member for King's Norton suggested a logical reason why that is all we want, but the Minister of Defence has given us no reason, nor has he given us any broad outline of our defensive plans as a whole. The next war, if it comes, will be a sudden atomic affair. It will be waged against people, homes, industries, and lines of communication. Therefore, what we need is a few really highly trained personnel.
We have heard from both sides of the Committee that neither 12 months nor 18 months is sufficient time in which adequately to train a man to a high degree of technical efficiency. Another aspect of the dilemma with which we are faced in trying to make a decision is this: It is extremely important today, from the point of view of trying to maintain peace, that we should get the lifeblood of our country going again and our industries built up. On that basis there is a strong case for reducing the period of service to 12 months. But I still feel that we have been


given no concrete evidence on which to vote. What the Minister of Defence should have said is, "We want so many men for police purposes, but for actual warlike defence we want a larger number of men than will volunteer, and they must be highly trained in technical matters."
If that is to be the case, then perhaps another kind of conscription would have to be introduced, conscription by ballot or some such scheme might have to be worked out. I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) when he suggests that conscription is good for the country. I, personally, would resent being told that it is good for me, and I believe that the majority of British people would too and in this they would be quite justified. I am against the person who is against conscription at this particular moment. That is an ostrich-like point of view, and is equally dangerous. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed on that. These arguments then leave the Committee suspended in mid-air. We have not been told anything by the right hon. Gentleman which, in my opinion, will help us to decide how to vote. I am going to vote on the second Division for a period of 12 months, as it is better than nothing at all. I will protestingly and haltingly vote for 18 months, but for this reason only: A case was made very strongly by the right hon. Gentleman in March that this period was decided to be necessary, on the expert advice of the Chiefs of Staff, and today we have heard nothing to contradict that statement. Certainly, this first Division will be a halting and unhappy one from this point of view, that the right hon. Gentleman has left the Committee in a difficult and unfair position

Mr. Paget: The Chiefs of Staff never did advise 18 months. The period which the Chiefs of Staff advised was five years, and then they said they would get as much as they could.

Mr. Astor: I do not accept that. Supposing that that were true, 18 months is nearer to five years than is 12 months. I have always regarded the appointment of the Minister of Defence with a certain amount of satisfaction, but I must say that, after this exhibition, I certainly hope

that, if this country is to be involved in a war shortly—and I do not for one instant believe that it will be—the right hon. Gentleman will not be in charge of our defence.

Mr. Crossman: I had the impression just after the Debate on the Second Reading that quite a number of hon. Members of the Opposition would have supported an Amendment for a period of 12 months if it had not been put down by the Minister of Defence, but now that it has been put down by the Minister they find it better political tactics to make difficulties. It seems quite clear that no one, from the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to the ordinary back bencher on the other side, has made any serious criticism of the 12 months' period. I see one peculiar difficulty. It was difficult for this Committee, as the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) has said, that we had inadequate evidence to decide on 18 months; and I think that we have quite adequate evidence today to judge of the 12 months' period.
I would ask the Minister one question the answer to which I think he should give the Committee. It has been stated in the Press that the Cabinet asked the Chiefs of Staff for three alternative plans—a plan of training for one year, a plan of training for one and a-half years, and a plan of training for two years—and that in deciding this they were deciding on three detailed plans. In that case, all that the right hon. Member for Woodford said about the 48-hour panic decision, and "coughing up" a new plan virtually at a moment's notice, would be completely untrue. I feel convinced that the Minister will be able to tell us that detailed plans for one year, one and a-half years and two year were presented, and that it is not true that the Cabinet had to scrap the only plan and go in for something out of the blue. It chose between Plan A and Plan B, both plans having been worked out.
If I am correct in that assumption, I think that it must be poined out that a balanced working out is not a change of principle. It was stated in the speeches on Second Reading that there would be a reduction in the period as soon as possible. All that has been decided since is to acccelerate the return to a peacetime Army. No one will pretend that an


18 months conscription period is something which we can imagine as a permanent peacetime part of our constitution in this country. I could swallow possibly the idea of one year, but to suggest as a permanent system 18 months; which clearly is a compromise between the two years demanded by the Chiefs of Staff and one year, seems to be completely fantastic, What seems to be the proper explanation of this is that the change here is merely a decision to accelerate the return to a peacetime standard of Armed Forces rather faster than was planned some time ago.
The Opposition asked what factors have intervened since last October or even since last March which could change the mind of the Government. I will be as frank as the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) and say that politics are a real factor. I did not notice that the Opposition, when the Government "capitulated" on the subject of C licences in connection with road transport, hollered out, and said that this was a violation of every decent rule of government. When capitulations were made to a Conservative minority that was a perfectly reasonable attitude to take in a democracy, but when a vast majority of Members over here suggest that there should be this compromise, that is regarded as a vile capitulation
6.45 p.m.
I suggest that the issue of 12 months is an extremely serious and important question, which should be considered on its merits. In considering it on its merits, we have to make a calculation of risks. We are in an appalling economic crisis; we are in great strategic danger. We have to weigh up the risks of the dollar position against the risks of cutting our Armed Forces below the level of security. I would like to quote one or two figures. We were challenged by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) on what has happened since March. What was suspected before March, but which was not known certainly is now known certainly. We are now spending our dollars double as fast as we were last year. That was not known for certain in March. We can now say it with sure knowledge, and it is very relevant with regard to the size of the Armed Forces abroad.
May I remind hon. Members opposite that when we study the balance of trade last year we discover that we spent £300 million on Government responsibilities overseas, whether in Germany or the Middle East—the vast majority of it was in those two places. The gap between our imports and exports and the gap between health and bankruptcy was £300 million. I am not saying that we should scrap the whole cost of the Army abroad in order to fill the gap. I am only recording the fact. Any responsible Government has to face the fact that, in that economic situation it has to calculate risks, and see which is the greater and which the lesser risk, and it may well have to change its mind about these risks in a changing world.

Earl Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman bring out the fact that, as I think is the case, £100 million of that money was spent because of the Government's calamitous policy, which he condemns as much as we do on this side of the House, in Palestine?

Mr. Crossman: I want to get on with my speech, but I am willing at any time to talk about Palestine. I would remind the noble Lord that even if we are doing badly, we still have to have troops, and the worse we do, unfortunately, the more we require troops in' Palestine. He is not going to accept the principle, I hope, that the worse we are doing the more necessary it is to refuse the Government troops. Therefore, that is a completely irrelevant remark about Palestine. It demands large numbers of troops which cost dollars, and any Government must, therefore, weigh the economic against the strategic risks. That has nothing to do with the Chiefs of Staff. It is absolutely the responsibility of the Government, and having been told of the strategic risks by the Chiefs of Staff and having been told by the Treasury and the Board of Trade what the economic risks are day by day, the Cabinet have the unfortunate job of weighing those risks against each other and saying to themselves, "If we spend millions of pounds on soldiers overseas we go bankrupt, but if we do not spend anything on soldiers overseas our prestige and reputation in the world is reduced."
That leads to a desperately difficult calculation. I suggest that that calculation was fundamentally transformed during the spring, and I believe that the views


of the Government on the relative importance of the economic and strategic position were very properly swayed by a series of Debates starting on the Army Estimates, running right through the Defence Estimates and then on the Second Reading of this Bill. It is decidedly to the credit of this House that from both sides there was a pounding away at the idea that a drastic reduction of the Armed Forces was possible without any less efficiency. What is wrong with a Government which, after four Debates and after hearing these things four times, paid some attention and at last drew the inevitable conclusion? We to get clear the political choice between dollars and soldiers. Let us remember that every soldier overseas is an invisible import and every foreign trouble we have costs us dollars. That was for the Cabinet to decide and not for the Chiefs of Staff, and they saw the fundamental change that had taken place this spring. Slowly they came to realise that our foreign policy and our military policy were far beyond the strength of the country. Some of us on these back benches said so in October and we have repeated it since. We am glad to see that at last wisdom is being shown by the Government.

Mr. J. Hudson: Was not this in the White Paper and was not this all known last October?

Mr. Crossman: It was not in the White Paper on Defence, and the full details of our dollar expenditure were only disclosed in the White Paper on national income which came out only a few weeks ago.
Coming to the strategic consequences of 12 months, I agree with the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), whose effusions I think would have been of greater propriety and would have given him more hope of preferment under a Coalition Government than under this one. He did say one remarkable and intelligent thing. He said that a 12 months period would make all the difference to our strategy. I agree entirely. If we are to cut the period of service to 12 months and if we also are to lose some of the service of the men from the 1948 to the 1949 period, as we are losing it, we are going to have fewer men in the Armed Forces than was calculated last October and that must effect our strategy., I hope that the Minister of Defence will tell us more about it in his reply. I am glad to

see how the Front Bench is, in fact, listening with greater wisdom to those who warned them of the dangers of a foreign policy and a defence policy incommensurate with our strength.
Where are the cuts coming from? Not from India, because we have fewer men in India than before the war. Not from Germany, because we shall be able to train men in Germany and we will save our active troops, leaving only the men in Germany who are being trained, which will allow the trained divisions to be sent elsewhere. There is only one area where we find the overwhelming weight of our troops, and that is in the Middle East, stretching, if I may put it broadly, from the Sudan to Greece. I appreciate that quite deliberately we are proposing—and I think the proposal is wholly sound—that by 1950 there will not be a great British Army in the Middle East. This Government, thank Heavens, have decided that the unilateral responsibility for that great area is far beyond our strength and we cannot continue to hold it.

Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Blackburn rose—

Mr. Crossman: I will not give way because I am anxious to get on with this speech.
I suggest that this decision, which means that our Armed Forces are to be reduced from 1,400,000, around which they are now, to something round about 600,000 from 1950 onwards, means that we cannot maintain the gigantic commitments to which the Government were heir when they first came into power. Very properly they have decided that someone else must share the responsibility of the Middle East by 1950 whether under power politics or under international control. We cannot do it and we cannot continue in Palestine to be the sole policeman. I draw that conclusion from the Defence Minister's decision to reduce the period of conscription from 18 months to 12 months, and I welcome it as a realistic appreciation of the situation.
The Defence Minister quite rightly said that if things got really black and war threatened, we might have to reserve or revise the period of service in the Armed Forces. I have been informed that the Chiefs of Staff made certain specific reservations with regard to the position in the Middle East when they agreed to 12 months. I should like to have an


assurance from the Minister of Defence that they did not make any specific reference or reservation about the Middle East after 1950.

Mr. Blackburn: On the last occasion when the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) spoke and persuaded the Government to accept his point of view, he said there was no connection between a defence policy and a foreign policy. Now he proudly claims that there is a connection.

Mr. Crossman: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for King's Norton, who soon will get to the other side of the Committee if he works hard enough. The last time I spoke I said it was vital, when we were discussing whether or not we were adequately armed, that we should give the Government the troops whether we liked their foreign policy or not. That was the central point. I did not say that there was no connection between a foreign policy and a defence policy. Of course there is and any child knows it, and I do not deny that the number of troops has a bearing on strategy and strategy determines foreign policy. In answer to my hon. Friend, I am one of those few people who would agree to let the British Government have the troops whether we like their policy or not, but I would try to decide the number of troops required by analysing the relation between the two.
I want to conclude on this note. I welcome the Amendment wholeheartedly for two reasons. It does show a recognition, which is not too late, that the economic situation is so serious and that the feeling of the Labour movement on these Benches was quite right. We saw the wood but did not see the trees, but we were right in saying that we could not afford these gigantic forces. I welcome this reduction, in the second place, because it accelerates the rate of demobilisation and gives us what we were asking for in that connection. I welcome it, too, because it shows a realisation that the Labour Party foreign policy, whatever may be the Tory Party foreign policy, is going to make our strategy commensurate with the strength of this country, and that we are not going to follow France after the last war and take on for ourselves too big a foreign policy. We are going to see—either by international action or under power politics by sharing with other

powers—we get rid of some of the obligations which at present are killing this country's chance of recovery. It is for these reasons that I believe that not only the labour majority, but the people of this country, who have a great deal of sanity, are going to be most uninterested in Tory tactics and profoundly impressed by the commonsense of a Government who intend to make the necessary reduction to bring our strategy into relation with our actual strength.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Frank Byers: I do not want to strike a discordant note in this Debate, but I am afraid that I probably shall because I am one of those old fashioned people who believe that in wartime conscription of men, material and wealth is absolutely vital, but that in peacetime, from the point of view of the efficiency and safety of this country, we should rely upon the voluntary method of recruitment. I believe, too, that we could get the people we want by that method and have full employment if we believe—as the party opposite do not believe—in a wages policy.
Tonight, however, I want to deal with the merits of this Amendment. Frankly, I was not impressed by the arguments which the Minister of Defence put forward this afternoon. It was really not treating Parliament perhaps with the respect to which it is entitled to come and advance the proposition that it was the economic situation of this country which had caused the Government to change their minds within 48 hours. Hon. Members opposite cannot get away with that sort of thing, and the Minister of Defence knows that he cannot either. If it is true that it was the economic situation which changed the attitude of the Government, it is a very grave reflection upon the lack of foresight of this Government that it took them from October to March to find this out after they had introduced the Bill. If they are prepared to admit that they did not foresee it, I accept their excuse, but I believe that it was a battle between the "New Statesman" and the old lags—and the old lags lost.
I am not objecting, because I quite agree that Parliamentary democracy requires the pressure of Members of both sides upon the Government, but let us admit it. Do not let us come down, stand at that Despatch Box and say that we have


suddenly discovered that it is the economic situation which has caused the Government to change their attitude. Let us be honest about this. As far as the economic situation is concerned, quite obviously a reduction from 18 months to 12 months is in the interests of the country. Similarly, on the same argument, a reduction from 18 months to nothing would also be in the interests of the country. The people of this country want to know this economic argument. Why did the Government stop at 12 months? It may be a question of balancing risks but, if so, let us be told. We have very little information indeed upon which to judge. After listening to the Minister's speech I am no wiser as to the reason why, from the point of view of the economic situation, 12 months has been chosen instead of 18, or instead of six or even three.
Everything that has been said about this country's economic situation proves that conscription in itself is not helping it, and the arguments for 18 months, 12 months or any period are surely governed by two considerations. One is why we need a force of a given size now to meet our military commitments which we cannot raise by voluntary methods. I am not going to argue the point whether or not we could raise it voluntarily, although personally I think we could. The point is that one argument concerns commitments, and the second part of the argument has nothing whatever to do with it at all. It is that we must have adequate trained reserves if an emergency arises in which we have to go to war at a moment's notice. What about this question of commitments? Unless we know what the commitments are, or the actual size of the force which the Government have in mind to meet those commitments, we cannot decide upon an 18 months' period, a 12 months' period, or any other period. During the whole of the Debate on this Amendment we have not been given any indication by the Minister of Defence what the size of the force is to be in 1950 to meet these commitments. Hon. Gentlemen in this Committee, as responsible Members of Parliament, should not allow the Minister of Defence to get away from that Despatch Box without giving those figures.
Various suggestions have been made. We do know that there are to be just over one million men in the Armed Forces by March, 1948. I do not think that that figure will be denied. Nor do I think that it has ever been denied that that figure is to be reduced by 340,000 by the end of 1948 when this Bill comes into operation. That gives us about 700,000 men in the Armed Forces on the 18 months' period. But we were told that every six months' period made a difference of 100,000 men. We have reduced the period to 12 months and, therefore, the total of the Armed Forces will be about 600,000 on 1st January, 1949. Is that correct?

Mr. Crossman: At the end of 1950.

Mr. Byers: Very well, I accept that—at the end of 1950 when we have got rid of the present conscript element which came in before the provisions of this Bill. Actually, I think it is at the end of 1949, but I will not argue. May I ask the Minister of Defence this? Is it true that that figure, approximately 600,000, is to be the target for the Armed Forces of this country at the end of 1949 and the beginning of 1950? We ought to know. We know that only 200,000, or one-third, of those are to be conscripts. This is where we enter upon the argument about having a voluntary Army. I hope that when I develop my argument I shall have the support of all those hon. Members who have appended their names to the publication called "Keep Left," which advocated bringing down the figure from one million by 640,000 as quickly as possible to about 400,000.

Mr. Wyatt: It was stated that the force should be reduced from 1,400,000 by 640,000 to the figure of 800,000 by 31st March, 1948.

Mr. Byers: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman in his arithmetic.

Mr. Crossman: It is quite easy arithmetic.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman subtracts 640,000 from one million and gets 800,000.

Mr. Wyatt: The 640,000 is subtracted from 1,400,000.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. While all this is extremely interesting I thought that we were debating whether we should have an 18 months' period of service or a 12 months' period. What is contained or is not contained in a document called "Keep Left" does not seem to have very much to do with that.

Mr. Byers: We know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is very definitely Right, but I do want to follow up this point. I think the Minister of Defence is under an obligation to tell us how this force is to be composed. Is it to be 600,000, of whom 400,000 are to be volunteers and 200,000 conscripts? We ought to have that information as responsible Members of Parliament before we can decide. And can we have an assurance that 600,000 will meet the commitments, because we have reduced the figure in 48 hours by 100,000 men? Can we also have an assurance that the balance of 400,000 men will be raised by voluntary means? Can we know, because that again is affected by the fact that, if the number cannot be raised by voluntary means, the question arises, What are the Government going to do about it? Are they going to raise this period? Are they going to bring in a new Bill in two years' time, or reduce the commitments? Can we have that information, for I believe we ought to have it?
It conscripts are only to be one-third of the Forces in future, I should have thought it was quite clear that the voluntary method was the right one. The Minister of Defence should confirm or deny the figures which have been quoted inside and outside this House so that hon. Members may know exactly what the position is, and give the break-down of the conscript forces to the various Services. Is it true that 10,000 are going to the Navy, about 50,000 to the Royal Air Force and the balance of the 200,000 to the Army? We ought to know these figures before we part with this Amendment, and we should not be fobbed off with any talk of security.
There is also the question of reserves in relation to the period of conscription. It was suggested by one hon. Member that hon. Members on this side should not destroy confidence in the Government over this Measure. Quite frankly, the Government have destroyed

the confidence of the country already. The Government cannot escape responsibility for this. Let us be honest about it. Here is a quotation from a Parliamentary answer which was given by the Minister of Defence to the hon and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low). I intervened with a supplementary question and the Minister was good enough to give this statement. This ought to go on the record because this is an amazing piece of evidence in the light of the political volte-face of the Government within 48 hours The Minister said:
In the Royal Navy the length of training required varies very considerably between the various rating categories. The average period of initial shore training … may be taken as six months. This training provides sufficient grounding for the rating to be drafted to a sea-going ship or an air establishment to gain some practical experience …
and so on. Then he said:
… the great majority require 18 months to acquire the working experience without which basic training is of no practical value.
Talk about destroying the confidence of the country. I wonder what the Minister of Defence feels about this question now. Then he went on:
In the Army, the amount of training which a man must receive varies with the trade and the arm in which he serves.
Of course it does. That shows one how impossible it is to combine economy of manpower with conscription. One is bound to get that sort of anomaly where it takes six months to train one man and 18 months to train another. What happens? One man is wasting his time for six months and the other for 12 months. We cannot combine economy of manpower with conscription. The Minister went on to say:
The period of basic training varies from 18 weeks to 33 weeks. After this period of basic training a man joins a unit of the arm to which he belongs where his training continues along more specialised lines and where he gains the experience which is necessary as a background to that training. In general, it may be said that the man reaches the required standard after some 18 months' service.

Colonel Wigg: The hon. Gentleman has been reading from HANSARD but he has occasionally missed out considerable chunks.

Mr. Byers: I have, but I will read them if the hon. and gallant Member wishes.

Colonel Wigg: The hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by saying that he wanted the statement on the record, but he is leaving things out of the record.

Mr. Byers: I did not intend to mislead the Committee. I wanted to save time. This appeared in HANSARD on 28th March in answer to a Question and it can be looked up. So we go on. There is the same implication as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Gentleman says that there is the same implication as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned. Will he name a single trade in the Royal Air Force in which a man cannot be trained in 12 months, but in which he could have been trained, if the IS months' period had remained?

Mr. Byers: Air crew, maintenance trades; but I will read another extract:
So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, the length of t raining in ground trades depends entirely on the trade to which the man is allocated. At present all N.S.A. entrants receive eight weeks' recruit (general service) training—this will later be increased to 13 weeks—followed by the training course for their particular trade, the length of which varies considerably according to the trade. At the end of his period of full-time service the airman will be regarded as a fully trained member of the Reserve.
That is 18 months:
The position of aircrew is, of course, different. For them the period of full-time service contemplated under the National Service Bill will be insufficient to enable them to attain full operational efficiency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 240–1.]
What was the answer of the Minister of Defence to that? It was that they are going to intensify the training, are going to telescope it. What a shocking reflection on this Government that only as the result of a revolt of their own Members have they been forced to make this economy. This is a most amazing thing. Hon. Members opposite have done a great service to this country. If they had not revolted, the people in the Army, Navy and Air Force would have gone on lackadaisically, slowly, with the 18 months' training without anybody finding it out; but they revolted for entirely different reasons. They have saved individuals of this country six months' waste of time, according to the Minister of Defence. On the Report stage those hon.

Members should revolt again and get the period down to six months. On the Third Reading they should say that they are going to vote against the Bill entirely, and they will then do away with conscription. If the Government want to create confidence in the country, it is up to them to make a much better case for the intensification of this training. I have suggested that we could get the numbers we want by voluntary means, but I am not going to argue that now. I shall vote against both these Amendments. I think this is entirely wrong in principle. I believe that the conscription principle will wreck the three Services.

Mr. Paget: I want to deal first with two entirely false reasons which were given by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech. It was first said that the 18 months' period had been the period advised by the General Staff; that the General Staff advice was being thrown over, and that an arbitrary figure was being adopted for political reasons. That is wholly at variance with the facts. The General Staff were asked what their requirements were. [HON. MEMBERS "How do you know?"] They put in their requirements, and those requirements worked out at a period of no less than five years. They were then asked to think again.

Brigadier Low: On a point of Order. In disclosing these things, is not the hon. Gentleman guilty of a breach of the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Hogg: No, because it is not true.

Mr. Paget: We then got a two-year period, which is not a period which has been advised by the General Staff. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) said, there were three separate schemes of two years, 18 months and one year, which were not requirements of the General Staff, but were all compromises. It was always a question of which compromise to accept. It is inevitable that it should be a question of which compromise one should accept, because on the one hand there are the economic demands for the security of the country and on the other, the military demands; and the military demands are put at their highest by the General Staff and the economic demands are put at their highest by other people It is always a question of arriving at a


compromise between those two. Remember that our traditional policy has always been to be unprepared at the beginning of a war.
Well, we have always won our wars and that has not been mere coincidence. It has been cause and effect. The measure of our unpreparedness was the measure of economic strength which we had built up in peacetime; that measure of our economic strength was the measure of our potential reserve; that, in turn, became conclusive in the final stages of our wars. True, that policy was only feasible when we had a Continental Army to lose the first battle for us and give us time. We cannot afford that policy today, but neither can we afford the policy of France, who so weakened herself by maintaining in peacetime too large an Army that she was incapable of fighting, having expended her Reserves by the time it came to a war. The problem which faces this country all the time is where to strike a balance between those two.
The other suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition was that this Government had been forced to accept this alteration by the people who voted against conscription in the Second Reading Debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those people who voted against conscription, voted because they were against conscription, against 18 months, against 12 months—[An HON. MEMBER: "Against six months."] Against any period. They will always vote against conscription. What political pressure was exerted upon the Government from this side came from those who were just as interested in making this country strong as any hon. Member sitting opposite. It came very largely from those who had served in the Forces and had actual experience of training men. They were strongly in favour of the 12 months' period because of their experience in this matter and their belief that that was the period which struck the proper balance between our military and our economic needs.
Where hon. Members opposite have been going wrong in this matter is in confusing the problem of unit training with individual training. The object of this Conscription Bill is not to provide ready-made units, it is to provide a Reserve; it is to provide men who have

done their individual training and are available for welding into Reserves. That is the distinction which hon. Members opposite have not drawn, and 12 months is ample for that individual, basic training. I would pose this question to hon. Members opposite, and particularly to the one in the middle who seems so amused. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are all amused."] I mean the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low). He has been a commanding officer—[An. HON. MEMBER: "Brigadiers are not commanding officers."] Then I will put it to those who have been commanding officers. Put yourself in this position: You have to form a unit, whether it be a ship or a battalion or a squadron. You are sent Reservists: you are told that some of them have done 12 months' service, some 13, some some 18. Would any hon. Member in the position of a commanding officer, having to form that unit, draw the slightest distinction between any of those people? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] I do not believe for a moment that he would do so, nor do I believe that he would be able to distinguish between those various periods. I am certain that, as far as the individual is concerned, it would not be possible to distinguish at all. Of course, it takes much longer to get your unit trained, but what we want from this Bill is to provide that individual training which will make men ready for unit training when they are called up.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: As the hon. Gentleman has asked a question, will he let me reply? A commanding officer within 48 hours would be well aware of the men who had done those various periods of training, and would be bound to take account of that.

Mr. Paget: I doubt whether in practice there would be any distinction at all as one went on with the job of making a unit. Indeed I think the question of how recently they had done their training far more important. In practice it would be the abler men who would do better in that unit, regardless of the training they had previously.
I want to get quickly to the naval question, which is what I want to deal with particularly. During the war, the period of training was six weeks in barracks, then men came to their ships when they had been 12 weeks or nine weeks in the Navy. The ship took some six weeks to work up,


and then she had to go into service as a fighting unit. In the case of the specialist trades, 12 months is no good, 18 months is no good; your specialist, key men, have obviously to come, and always will have to come, from the volunteer Navy. As far as technicians are concerned, the electrical artificer, is a trades unionist, a craftsman; he comes into the Navy as a craftsman, he is brought into the ship's company with six weeks training, and he gets his technical training outside the Navy. That technical training, so much required by all the Armed Forces today, is brought into the Forces from outside; it must be; and the problem which the Chiefs of Staff have to solve is to bring the technical skills learned outside into the Army to do the technical jobs there. The basic training is what we require from conscription.
As far the Navy is concerned, what we want to do is to teach these men to be sailers and get them accustomed to being at sea. That can be done in 12 months so long as you get them to sea during that period. We have not the ships to do it now, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, whom I am glad to see here, that what we want to do is to get some of the Empire shipping lines and use those lines for training men to let them do their period of training in those ships. It will not be economic from a trading point of view, but it will be infinitely cheaper than keeping ships of that size for this purpose.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the hon. Member allow me to interrupt on that point?

Mr. Paget: You could put the training equipment on those ships and you would give those men an opportunity of sea service.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: This is a very important point, if the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt.

Mr. Paget: I cannot give way. I have a lime limit.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is nonsense about Empire lines and training naval units.

Mr. Paget: My final point is concerned with the overseas commitments which we have always had in the past. It was all right for us to have an Army abroad when

the position was that we wanted to export our unemployment. Now we must look at this problem in a very different manner. Our possessions abroad are great reservoirs of manpower, and they must be looked at in that light. It must not be a question of our having to provide troops for Colonial defence. We want to make use of our Colonial possessions to have a Colonial Army. That is one aspect of this new state of affairs which we have to realise, and the question of raising Colonial troops is one which will have to be borne in mind by the Government.

7.30 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: There is a point in the speech of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Paget) to which I wish to refer. It is entirely clear to me and, I think, to other hon. Members on this side of the Committee, that his policy, and that of hon. Members who are in sympathy with him, is to use the argument that our foreign policy is too forceful for the amount of our resources. They therefore wish to weaken those Forces in order that they can withdraw from foreign policy still further in that direction. Of that I have no doubt, and there is no illusion on these benches as to what is behind their opinion, which they so forcefully express.

Mr. Wyatt: Would the hon. and gallant Member elaborate his last statement a little more fully, so that we can get his exact meaning?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) is so slow in the uptake. Unfortunately, I am limited in my time this evening, and I have other things on which I wish to speak. If he would like to read in HANSARD what I have said, and ponders over it, he may possibly come to some conclusion.
Having suffered in the early days of the war from having to train troops with inadequate equipment, and having to train troops at a time when equipment was adequate and in plenty, I feel that I can speak with a certain amount of authority on the question of the time it takes to train a man for modern warfare. Many hon. Members opposite have taken part in the war, I believe some of them know that what they are saying really does not hold very much water. The Minister of Defence said that there were


two aspects of training, the basic and primary, and the final, collective training. I support what has been said from the Liberal Benches, that unless there is time for collective training, the whole of the primary training is completely wasted, because, until the man has had experience of co-operation with other troops, and has seen his basic training put into effect in the field, it will not remain with him, but will go out of his head in a short space of time. We had experience in training troops during the war which showed that unless the basic training is of a very high order indeed, we could never get the men to the training area at all. One would see a string of armoured fighting vehicles broken down on the road, and the exercise would never take place.
I am absolutely convinced that a specialist in modern warfare cannot be trained in 12 months, and seven out of 10 men in the Army nowadays are specialists. It may be argued that we are not trying to produce a fully trained soldier, but a man who will go out of the Army with a certain amount of training and if called up in a state of emergency, can then be trained fully in a very short space of time. I think that is a very dangerous thing to do, to gamble on a situation which has occurred admittedly in two previous wars, but who suggests that it would occur again, and that we should be given any breathing space or time to get these men into the Forces, and bring them to the standard requisite to face highly trained forces of other nations? I do not for a single moment believe that the Chiefs of Staff have agreed to this. If any one of them did, I would like to ask him to write out a training programme for 12 months for a member of the Royal Armoured Corps. We have to remember that in wartime we worked seven days a week and 18 hours a day. It is not suggested that we are going to do that in peacetime. There has to be education for four hours a. day, and a certain amount of liberty and leave, I trust. It is utterly impossible. I know that to be a fact. Whether the Government accept that or not, is a different matter.
Personally I dislike the idea of conscription. I would infinitely rather command volunteers, and I would like to see the Minister of Defence obtain his numbers through a voluntary system. Those numbers have to be obtained; we are all

agreed on that. I know there are people who say that there should be a surge in the human breast, and a desire to give service to the country, and that that should bring in sufficient volunteers. That will not work unless the men are paid. They must be paid in commensurate measure with industry. There are two very simple examples. The Ministry of Labour Gazette quotes a figure for October, 1946, of the average weekly wage in industry, 1205. 9d.—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is going far outside the scope of the Amendment.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner. I thought I was producing an argument in favour of voluntary service, and that I was allowed to do so. I will conclude by saying that it does not compare in any way, and I am perfectly willing to give the figures at another time, comparing them with pay in the Forces.
Another very serious question which arises is the question of Germany. The Minister indicated in his speech that these conscripts are to be called upon to serve part of the time in near areas, which I understand includes Germany. If that is the case, it will mean that a large number of Regular troops in Germany will have to go to other theatres, where they would not be sent had the conscription period been 18 months, because the conscripts would have gone there instead. We are going to weaken the strength of the Forces in Germany. We know that the units in Germany are down to 80 per cent. of war establishment now. When they go out there, are these men to be concentrated in training areas, and training units, or to be dispersed through the various units in Germany? If so, they will not get any training. They will have to mount guard on the dumps, the factories, and the schools, in exactly the same way as the other men are doing. Furthermore, if time could be found for training them, they would not have the equipment. There is only one way in which to train the specialist soldier nowadays. That is by centralisation of equipment, and concentration of training. If those two principles are denied, we will not get anything like a trained soldier. They will be wasting the whole 12 months, except for the period on the


barrack square in England, before they go out.
I ask the Minister of Defence to look into the details of the training of a soldier in, say, the Royal Armoured Corps, a little more carefully. Does he realise that a man in a tank has to be able to fire two types of gun, work two types of wireless, and read a map while going across country at 25 miles an hour? That takes a little doing, and takes a long time to learn. I agree with the brilliant speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). I had the honour of being an instructor helping to train that division, and at the end of a year's training with fully trained men with the highest discipline—

Mr. Paget: Could the hon. and gallant Member train them in 18 months?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: My considered opinion, for which I was asked at the end of the war, having trained two armoured brigades, is that 18 months is the rock minimum. That is my firm opinion. I think the Minister has shown himself very weak in this matter, very weak indeed. Twice in our recent history we Regular soldiers had to see men poured into uniform in a hurry, and sent overseas to meet overwhelming odds, and to fight against very much better trained and equipped troops. We know the result of it, and, my goodness, they fought gallantly. If that ever occurs again, and these little wooden crosses start rising on some beach, or in some foreign country, the responsibility will be laid at the door of the present Minister of Defence.

Colonel Wigg: The effect of this Amendment on the Army would be twofold. It would increase the size of the Reserve and would lessen the period of unit training. As I understand it, every arm of the Service can, in fact, get its I.T.C. and basic training in a period of under 40 weeks, leaving a period of 12 weeks for unit training. It is that part of the problem which worries me considerably, and I am worried about that section of the militiamen who will subsequently be recalled, if they are ever recalled, to serve in a unit based in a locality other than their own. I think that the Committee have a justifiable complaint, not against the Minister of Defence, but the Secretary of State for War in that he could have used the Army Estimates to have given us much wider information

as to how the scheme is to work. One has to delve as best one can to gather bits and pieces of information. As I understand it, the anti-aircraft role is to be carried out through units based upon the locality in which the man is serving. So far as the men who serve in those units are concerned, I do not think it matters very much whether they do an initial period of training of 18 months or 12 months. In the first instance, the 12 months could be satisfactorily used for the basic training in their specialised role, and also, as the men are to be based on the locality if they are ever to be called up to serve, the training facilities of the area could be harnessed to the training scheme.
I was greatly interested to see the Ministry of Education administrative memorandum which was published over a year ago, and which gave a proud record of the services rendered to the Armed Forces by the normal civilian educational institutions up and down the country. As the point is important, perhaps I might give one or two figures. In the case of the Royal Air Force 25,750 men were trained in radio, and in the case of the Army 24,661. Army tradesmen trained numbered 86,380. I am merely quoting from the first three of a formidable list of more than 35 items. So it is possible, if the problem is tackled as intelligently as it was tackled during the war, to build up an effective training instrument for those units where the officers, N.C.Os. and men have been given opportunities to get to know one another.
I wonder a great deal about what is to happen to the young men in some of the specialised arms of the Service, such as the Royal Armoured Corps, which the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) has mentioned. A period of 40 weeks, and then only 12 weeks in a unit, is nothing like enough, particularly when one remembers that these troops would be by way of being a corps d'élite. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the proportion of reservists in a unit does not make much difference.

Mr. Paget: My point was that if reservists were being called up it would not make much difference whether they had previously been 12 months in the Service, or whether they had been in the Service for 18 months at some previous time.

7.45 p.m.

Colonel Wigg: There again it would depend on the arm of the Service. I am sorry I misunderstood my hon. Friend's point, but I think it would make a considerable difference, especially in some of the specialised arms of the Service.
By and large I welcome the Amendment, because in my judgment it indicates a revolt by the Government against the specialised advice given by the General Staff. At the present time the War Office is suffering from a little dose of inbreeding, and it has been the experience of the Army that the General Staff can be wrong on major issues. I wish to quote a specific instance in which the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was not only wrong, but tragically wrong, in 1934. The then Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field-Marshal Montgomery-Massingberd, said:
It is certain that if we do not go slowly with mechanisation we shall land ourselves in difficulties. I am convinced, therefore, that we should go slowly.
He was a man who loved horses. It is possible for distinguished soldiers to make mistakes. It is possible for Governments to be too much impressed by the officers concerned, and perhaps therefore inclined to take their advice a little uncritically. I am sure that the Army—particularly the War Office—at this juncture, will be asking for as much as it can get, for as long as it can get it. I would much prefer the Government to come along and ask for the period to be a year. The Government have got 18 months to work out a scheme, and to bring that scheme to the House and tell us what it is.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) today was in one of his most irresponsible moods—[HON. MEMBERS; "No."]—and, therefore, forgot the very constructive proposal which he put before the House on a previous occasion. He then said that the House ought to have a Committee composed of Members from all sides of the House to whom, if the Government could not give information to the whole House, it could be given. The Minister of Defence should, tonight, accept that proposal which was made by the Leader of the Opposition so that the House would be in a position to see how these young men are to be used during that period of

a year. We are giving to the Services and to the Minister of Defence the most valuable asset which this country has got, the lives of the best and most intelligent section of the community, for a period of a year. We shall be running away from our responsibility if we do not make sure that that year is used to the best possible advantage of the individual and of the community. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing that we are running a grave risk indeed that we shall take these men into the Forces, give them a little training for a little while and let them spend the rest of their service learning to troop the Colour. It is that of which I am afraid. It did happen. It was not long before the war that the pinnacle of Army training was the slow march and learning to salute on pay parade. Whatever views there may be about the period of service, all Members who have been in the Services would agree that we must avoid that kind of thing at all costs. It would make the troops "browned off" to feel that they were to be used in this way.
I hope that the Minister of Defence will in some way or other—accepting the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition if there is no other way—give information to the House about what the scheme of training is to be, and, if it is found that that period of a year is no good, that he will not be afraid to come back to the House, irrespective of what hon. Members may say, and tell the House that a year is no use. I am sure if the Opposition were convinced that he would do that, they would be prepared to vote for the period of 12 months. It is important to get the greatest measure of agreement on this matter and, at this late hour, I ask the Opposition whether they would agree to support us if the Minister of Defence would accept these proposals.

Brigadier Low: I would always join with the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) when he complains of lack of information, either from the Minister of Defence or from any of his right hon. Friends. I thought that much of what the hon. and gallant Member has said was really in support of keeping the 18 months' period in the Bill. There is machinery in the Bill itself to reduce the time from 18 months to any such period as Parliament might approve by means


of Order in Council. It appears to me that during our discussion in this Committee we have forgotten that the 18 months which the Government propose to delete from the Bill is a ceiling, and not necessarily the definite period of service. We are discussing whether or not the ceiling should be 18 months. It is true that we must consider what is the minimum period required to train a man so that he may take his place effectively in reserve after a period of part-time service. We should not forget that there are other relevant matters. In particular, there is the question whether men called up under the National Service Act should or should not do anything other than mere training. For instance, should they do what the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) objects to—go overseas and do garrison duty? Until we have discussed these matters, I do not think that we can reach a proper conclusion.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley that it is very difficult for us to reach any conclusion, unless we can have full information. I find myself in some difficulty in considering the minimum period for training. I had been coming to the view that it might be possible to have a period of 12 months for training alone. However hard I may have tried to form that view, the Minister of Defence, both today and earlier, has done everything he possibly could to persuade me that I was wrong. In reply to a Question which I asked him, and which has been referred to by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), he said, in so many words, that it took 18 months to train a man adequately, in the Navy, the Air Force or the Army. Even since he announced the decision of the Government to reduce the figure from 18 months to 12, he has expressed himself as dissatisfied with the 12 months' period and said quite clearly that he thinks that 18 months is more desirable. In those circumstances, I find it very hard today to come to a decision that anything under 18 months is a satisfactory ceiling to insert in the Bill.
When one listens to this Debate with an impartial and open mind, as I have tried to do, one concludes that all the arguments have tended to show that in 12 months one can do little more than give a man his primary and basic training. I was much impressed, and I am

sure all hon. Members were impressed, by what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier PriorPalmer) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) had to say. Really, we have had no contradiction from any man in authority on the opposite side of the Committee. We have had speeches from a number of hon. Members opposite, such as that made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He alleged that he had secret knowledge, first, of what the Chiefs of Staff knew, and then of what the present Cabinet knew, because he told us exactly why they had come to their present decision. Then he gave us an authoritative account of how long it took to train a man in a ship. I do not hold out myself as a man of authority on these matters. I commanded a company of infantry for three and a half years in the war. Therefore, I have a fairly good idea of how long it took them to provide me with a trained man, and then had experience on the general staff, but I do not think that we in this Committee can base our judgment on the experience which we may have had three, four or five years ago in the Forces. Certainly we can put forward our arguments based on that experience but we must rely on what the Government tell us that their technical experts advise.
When I am confronted, as I am in this problem, with the varying statements of the Minister of Defence, I am bound to say that I could not possibly support the Government in their move to reduce the ceiling from 18 to 12 months. Naturally, if they win the day—as I imagine they will—I, like many other hon. Members, being in favour of some period, will take 12 months as the next best to 18. The Minister of Defence has done all he could to persuade me that I was wrong on the matter of 12 months, and as a result of what has been said today, I must say that I have been persuaded.
It is very difficult to reach a decision unless we know what objective the Government have set for the Forces in regard to the training of the men who are to be called up. What state of efficiency do they wish to achieve? If the men are to be expert tank drivers, do the Government want them to be expert at driving Shermans or the newest tank that we may have? Or are they merely to be brought up to a general pitch of efficiency so that


with a further period of training, they will be able in an emergency to drive any tank which we may have? What is the actual object of the training? Perhaps we may be told something about that by the Minister who replies. We must be given some idea what state of readiness the Government plan to fix for the Forces. As a result of whatever training period there is for national service men—this large number of trained reserves, which they say, in the White Paper and elsewhere, they consider essential to the defence of the country—do they consider that those men should be ready in one, two, six or nine months? Until we know that I do it see how this Committee can come to a reasoned decision. It is time that we had some information on these matters from responsible Ministers in the Government.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) is not present. It seems to me that if he was logical in what he said in the Second Reading Debate, he would vote against the Government on this Amendment. In the course of his speech on 1st April he said he accepted the view that one year was necessary for training and for nothing else. Today, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, to whom apparently the hon. Member for East Coventry considers he has taught a lesson, did not appear completely to have learned that lesson. In his speech he said that the whole of the year was not to be confined to training, but that the men called up would do other things in addition. They would spend some of the time guarding the things that have to be guarded; they would not spend all their time on training. If the hon. Member for East Coventry is logical, he too will vote against introducing this 12 months' period.

8.0 p.m.

Colonel Wigg: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to be unfair. If a man does his basic training up to a period of 12 months and then goes to a unit, his training is still going on. He would not be excluded from the normal duties of the unit. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will see that there is no difference between what he s saying and what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman).

Brigadier Low: I believe that the hon. and gallant Member has previously been referred to in this Debate as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the hon. Member for East Coventry. I am glad of his intervention on behalf of that hon. Member. I quite agree that after a man's basic training is completed he goes to ordinary unit duties, whatever the branch of the Service. If the unit is employed on garrison duties of such a nature that the man spends only one or two nights in bed, he will not do much training. If the unit is free and on reserve, then the man will be available for training. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will see the difference. If he reads the speech of the hon. Member for East Coventry I am sure he will recognise that the hon. Member also saw the difference.
I consider that as soon as possible a man called up under the National Service Act should be required to do garrison duty overseas. I do not think we can now say that, by 1950, there will definitely be sufficient volunteers to carry out all our oversea commitments. The hon. Member for East Coventry wants those oversea commitments reduced, but the majority of the Committee do not. When I talk about oversea commitments I may be guilty of some confusion of thought. I am considering our oversea responsibilities. I am not asking that the Government should keep so many troops in Palestine or so many in other parts of the world, provided that our responsibilities are carried out. I agree with the hon. Member for East Coventry that the national service man will not be required to do garrison duty overseas. It seems irresponsible for this Committee to decide now that there will be so many Regular volunteers in the Armed Forces, that it will not be necessary to draw upon conscripts for that purpose in 1950.
I cannot accept the proposition that the Government Amendment is right. If the Government had those Regulars, and if the Government came to us and said that national service would now be for training alone, there might be some case for reducing the period to 12 months. The Government have not given any indication of that sort. They have given us no indication that the state of readiness proposed or of the effectiveness of the service which the young men of the country are being required to give under this pro-


vision, will be greater than it would have been under the 18 months' provision. In those circumstances, I am bound to oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Shackleton: I propose to make one or two Committee points. Most of the speeches appear to have been in the nature of Second Reading speeches, but during the last hour or so hon. Members have got down to the technicalities of the period of training. There has been some improvement in the Debate and a much greater attention to the realities of the problem. I must, however, first recall the words which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) used, and the hyperbole in which he indulged, when he opened the Debate and attributed the adoption of the 12 months' period to degenerate intellectuals. The proposal actually came mainly from ex-Service Members of the Labour Party. The one non-ex-Serviceman, my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), will, no doubt, be quite pleased to be called a degenerate intellectual when he recollects that that was the term Herr Hitler applied to his opponents in Europe.
Turning to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), I felt very great sympathy for him when, in his opening remarks, he referred to the period of training. There is no doubt whatsoever that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence had done his very best to make the case for 12 months an impossible one to sustain. I can only say that the arguments which have been brought forward in his very words are ones which I regret that I cannot accept. In fact, I think it was an attempt to make a case where no case existed. I say that frankly. It is, however, noticeable that although in the statement referred to he spoke about 18 months being necessary for the Army and Navy, he quite failed to refer to any length of period for the Royal Air Force. I am satisfied, and I believe other Royal Air Force Members will also be satisfied, that 12 months is an adequate period for Air Force basic training and trade training in trades which are suitable for national service men anyway. The national service man will obviously be confined to certain trades. Apprenticed trades, and training to become members of air crews will normally be reserved for the volunteers, and the

period of that training will be something like three years. Obviously, therefore, the reduction of the conscription period from 18 months to 12 months does not interfere at all with the training problems of the Royal Air Force.
What it does, of course—and this point has been clearly made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool—is to reduce the period during which the national service man will be available for actual service. Even so, there will be a number of trades in which the basic training will be done in something like five or six months, and the men will be available for service at home or in areas abroad to which they can be conveniently transported. I say quite seriously and sincerely that I hope the reduction from 18 months to 12 months will not deprive many of these young men of the opportunity of going abroad. I know that this is a matter which will be discussed later. I am sure that it will be greatly welcomed in the Air Force if some of the period of that training and the actual service can be done abroad. As an ex-member of the Royal Air Force I have no hesitation whatever in accepting the 12 months' proposal and I hope that other hon. and gallant Members will also support it.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I am very glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Bowles. The Royal Air Force Members should have something to say in this very important matter of national service. Had I spoken on the Second Reading I should have done so in support of 12 months' service. That was my own personal view, from my knowledge of the Services, and particularly of the Royal Air Force. Now, one's knowledge is limited. It is two years since the end of the war. One has left the Service and one is not so well informed as to methods of training that have been introduced during the intervening period. I came along to the Second Reading and listened to the Minister. I was convinced by his argument and naturally voted on behalf of conscription for 18 months. In my Election address, in July, 1945, I said that I thought that national service was immediately necessary in the years after the war. The Minister has come here today, and has let the Committee down as a whole. I was more than disappointed. Had he put forward a convincing argument today I should have been with him tonight, and would have voted with him.
It was the worst effort I have heard from the Government Front Bench. I only wish the Minister were present to hear me say so. I feel that his effort this afternoon was deplorable in the scant information which he read from his brief. We are entitled to know something more than we have been told today in order that we may explain to our constituents what has happened. Very few people in this country like the idea of compulsory military service. I do not like it. I was in the Auxiliary Air Force before the war, and I learned that one can get far more from volunteers than one can get even from the Regulars, generally speaking. But I recognise it is essential to have compulsory service for a period. In my view, we must also do everything possible to get a larger volunteer force.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. and gallant Member must confine his remarks to the question of 18 months or 12 months, and not go into the question of conscription versus voluntary service.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I was making the point that if we had a larger volunteer force, the period could be reduced to 12 months. In the Second Reading Debate, the Minister of Labour referred to the Territorial Forces, and for the benefit of the Committee I will quote what he said:
Now, before the war the Territorial Forces were staffed with a number of enthusiastic men, who were willing to give their spare time to train for the defence of the country. But the training that can be given under those circumstances does not produce a sufficiently efficient individual to take full part in the defence of his country, and, in all probability, not sufficiently well trained to look after his own personal defence."[—OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st March, 1947; Vol. 435; c. 1675–6.]
After the Minister had made that statement, I intervened and asked whether he recalled that in 1940 auxiliary squadrons had fought in the Battle of Britain. In making that intervention, I did not seek to score a debating point, but was trying to point out that volunteers were quite capable, if well trained, of holding their own with Regulars. The Minister said I was making an unnecessary remark and putting wrong thoughts into his mind. I was simply trying to justify the case that if the volunteers were given the right training, they could hold their own with the Regulars. Unfortunately, in the

Territorial Army they did not always get the best equipment. The men were good, but they did not get the best materials with which to train. That was not so in the Auxiliary Air Force, in which they were given front line aircraft, and they were ready to play their part when the time came. They were given the right equipment, the right leadership and the right encouragement. Their annual flying hours were higher than those of some of the Regular squadrons. If there should be another war, my view is that the Air Force would have to play the major part in that war. As in the last war, they will be the front line of defence. With modern inventions, the manpower situation will become less stringent in the Services. Even with modern jet turbines, fewer men are required for maintenance, and with atomics still fewer men will be required over a long period.
8.15 p.m.
I should have been happier if we had been told by the Minister what sort of training there is to be during the 12 months' period. Are the men to be hard worked during the 12 months? How much leave are they to have? Are they to get six weeks' leave during the 12 months training? Are they to have long weekends? Are there to be annual inspections by generals and air-marshals? If we were told that they are to have concentrated training, it would give us an indication of what could be achieved in the period, but we have not been told that. The Government have taken too much time in getting the Territorials under way. Only last week did they commence recruiting for the Territorial Army. The Government have fallen down badly on this matter. If they had got that training going a year ago, it might have been possible to accept 12 months' compulsory training now. I do not think they have got the recruitment which they originally thought would be forthcoming. I am prepared to agree that if during the next year or two the Government can raise the voluntary force to a satisfactory level of efficiency and numbers, we could manage with 12 months, but at the moment we have not got that voluntary force. I do not know how I shall vote in the Division. I shall vote for the 12 months' service, but on the question of the 18 months, I may abstain, and I may vote for it. That will depend


upon what I hear in the remainder of the Debate. I implore the Government to do everything they can to raise the numbers in the voluntary forces. The people of this country will always put forth a better effort if they volunteer than if they are forced to do something. I beg of the Government to do everything they can to get volunteers into the three Services, and to give the right lead and the right encouragement.

Group-Captain Wilcock: The question of whether the period of service should be 12 months or 18 months must be solely one of opinion. Hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have agreed that, generally speaking, it is not possible to train men to a high state of efficiency or proficiency in 12 months or x8 months. In this matter of training, we must separate technical men and non-technical men. The non-technical men can be trained and be most useful in less than 12 months. I think all hon. Members will agree on that. That applies to soldiers, and possibly to drivers and to people like clerks and cooks. Neither the Army nor the Air Force is composed solely of technical men. A very large percentage of the men in all the Services, although perhaps to a lesser degree in the Navy, are non-technical men who can he trained in 12 months. The question of the training of the technical men is a very different story, and no one will disagree with the hon. and gallant Member opposite who said that it is not possible to train mechanised troops from scratch in a period of less than 18 months. The same would apply to mechanics in the R.A.F. and artificers in the Navy. We must try to clear our minds on the question of what is the right period.
There is one question that must be answered before we can give a reasoned view on this matter, and that is, where are these men to be used? Are they to be used overseas—and when one says "overseas", one does not regard Europe as being overseas? If they are not to be used overseas, there is no doubt that a period of 12 months would be a satisfactory one, since their training would continue when they were transferred to the Reserve after their 12 months' service. If the Minister answers the question on the lines that they are not to be used overseas, it would presuppose that all our overseas commitments will be covered

by Regular soldiers, ratings and airmen. In those circumstances I think it would be an acceptable solution that these men should be called up for 12 months and that on that basis they could be adequately trained and employed. We could accept the Amendment on that understanding. I am sure that many hon. Members on this side hope that the Government decided to make the alteration from 18 months to 12 months not because of any feeling in the House of Commons or the country, but on the basis of fact. These matters must always be decided as matters of fact. The Government have the advice of people who are trained to consider these questions and who can prepare schemes and give expert advice. I do not feel that the Committee ought to be in the position of having to decide whether the period should be 12 months or 18 months. In my view, we ought to be able to accept the advice of the Minister of Defence on this technical matter, and it is unfortunate that we have had two periods put before us to decide upon. As we have, it is my view that in the present position of the country, and provided these men are not required out East, 12 months should be sufficient.

Colonel Lancaster: I want to confine myself to the narrow issue of whether 12 or 18 months is the suitable period. Like other hon. Members who have spoken on this matter, I find myself in a great difficulty because of the lack of guidance from the Minister of Defence in the course of his statement. I want to reinforce, if any reinforcement is required, the brilliant speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) who, it seemed to me, possibly more than anybody else who has spoken this afternoon, put his expert finger on the crux of this situation. After all, what is the purpose of training? Surely, it is to ensure that a man can, during a short period, be made able to play his part in some formation in the field, ready to go into action. Whether we talk about primary training basic training or individual training, it is all for the purpose of fitting a man in due course to play his part in that formation. In the circumstances of this Conscription Bill there will inevitably come a period when these men will form a very considerable portion of whatever formation into which they are in due course drafted. If an emergency arises, therefore, we have to


consider the proposition, can we within 12 or 18 months train these men to play their part in that formation?
I am going to suggest that there is one other proposition on which we should be agreed, and that is, as has been pointed out by various hon. Members, that something like seven men out of 10 in the Army need to be specialists of one sort or another. If I draw on my own experience in this matter it is only to give practical effect to my opinion. It so happens that it fell to me during the war to have four training experiences which, I think, pretty well covered all the types of case which might arise, and as a result of that experience I feel that I can, at any rate, give an opinion which is of some substance.
At the beginning of the war I had the honour to be given command of a newly-formed battalion which, in the event, had to go into action within eight months and take part in the Battle of France. We were one of the last battalions withdrawn from Dunkirk, and I do not believe that anybody who took part in that experience will ever again want to suggest that men should be thrown into action within a period of eight months. My next experience was of a completely different nature. I had the great good fortune on our return to England to be transferred to a Regular division which had been training in peacetime and which, by then had reached a good pitch of efficiency. It was the purpose to complete the training of that formation to take part in the initial battles in North Africa. We had a great deal in our favour. The men were mature, not men of 18 or 19; they were on the whole men of 23 or 24 who were able to stand up to hard physical training. They were practically all Regular troops who had been embodied since the beginning of the war, and many of them had been in the Army for a considerable period. It was a very close race to get that division ready to go overseas.
After that, my next experience was the one which more than anything confirms in my mind what I. am trying to bring out in the few minutes during which I wish to take the time of the Committee. We had what seems to me to be the crucial test. We were told that it was important to produce within 12 months

an armoured division to take part in the North African campaign, and there was selected for the purpose a thoroughly sound infantry division which had fought in France, had been embodied for two years, and was likely, in the opinion of the authorities, to be capable of being trained within that period. We had everything to our advantage; we were given a general who in due course became the Commander of the 21st Army Group, all our staffs were Regular staffs, we had no administrative problems, and all our ancillary troops were Regulars. We were given 12 months to carry out that task, and as other hon. Members have said, at that time we were working under great strain. We worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week, with one purpose, and one only—to fit those men to take part in the field within 12 months from then. The result was that no single unit in that division was able to pass the test at the end of' 12 months, and fresh troops, more fully trained, had to be put in from elsewhere. That was a test which, I think, puts "paid" to any question of being able to take men and train them to be ready to go into the field within a period of 12 months—for after all, these were mature men who had been embodied for two years.
I had one further experience with a formation—which has already been referred to—of highly disciplined troops, perhaps the pick of the troops in the Army. I took on where my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) left off. They had been training at that time for nearly three years, and the purpose was to complete their training by D-Day. Once again, we all recognised that it was a very close race getting those troops ready. I cannot believe, in the light of my own experience or of anything I have heard in today's Debate, that I should be in any way justified in altering my opinion that 12 months is an inadequate period and that one could not in any sense feel that within that period we were building up a Reserve which, in the reasonable space of time of two or three months, would be able to play its part in a formation fit to go into action. I believe it would be a tragedy if once again we lulled ourselves into a false sense of security as a result of such a decision, and because of that I shall vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Bramall: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has shown one thing very clearly, that neither 18 nor 12 months goes any way towards producing a trained soldier. We must be absolutely clear about that point. Therefore, I think a great deal too much has been made of the difference between the two periods. When we have the testimony of the hon. and gallant Member, from his wide experience, that after three years troops are not trained to the point of being fit for the operations for which they are required, the difference between 18 months and 12 months, about which we have been disputing, does seem to be reduced to insignificance.
I hope I shall not be considered excessively presumptuous if I join issue with the very technical evidence given to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Members for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) and Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer). Naturally, the testimony which they have brought, from their very wide experience of training troops, must weigh very heavily with the Committee, but I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee one form of words which they both used. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing said that he spoke from the experience of training two armoured brigades. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton spoke of his experience of turning an infantry division into an armoured division. In both cases they were talking about training formations—but that is not the point with which this Bill deals.
8.30 p.m.
This Bill deals with training men, and that is very different. If we were contemplating the type of conscription which the French had before the war, including two or even three years' service, I would say that their point would be material, because we should then have a system in which men would be trained in units and formations, and would remain in those units and formations when they went into the Reserve. Clearly, with the system we are going to have that will be impossible. We shall have 100,000 men in training in the Army under this Bill, and behind these men will be between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 men in reserve. Therefore, the number of formations and the territorial spread of these formations—and the same is true of units—in which the men are to be trained

will be entirely different from the lay-out of the units and formations into which these men will go in reserve, and in which these men will fight in the event of war. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Members will agree that part of that long period of training to which they referred was not concerned with basic training—making a man a gunner, or a driver—but with the fitting together of the whole mechanism of sub-units, units and formations.

Colonel Lancaster: I think the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) was making was that the whole purpose of training was to fit an individual into a formation. He did not refer to formation training, but to making a man an efficient member of a formation.

Mr. Bramall: I appreciate that, but the hon. and gallant Member refers to making a man an efficient member "of a formation"—that is the point. We must also remember this, whether the training is to be for 12 or 18 months, that except, in the case of those people who happen to be under training when war breaks out, these men will not fight in the formations in which they have been trained. They will go into reserve in entirely different formations, and under entirely different commanders. All we can hope to do is to teach a man his trade in the Army, whether it be driving a tank, driving a truck, or manning an anti-tank gun. We can teach him his place as a private soldier or as an n.c.o. within a unit or formation, but what we cannot do, because this is the really long process, is to have a formation with a commander who has the complete confidence of the command under him, through the lower commands right down to the lance corporal in command of a section, with the soldier knowing those above him, and fitting into his particular place in the unit or formation. That is the job which takes the long time, and that is what we are not attempting to do under this Measure. It is for that reason I claim that the expert and valuable testimony which was put forward misses the mark.
I consider that too much has been made of this distinction between a man who is merely training and a man who is doing service abroad. By service abroad, whether the period is for 12 or 18 months, we can only mean service in Germany. That is the only theatre to which it will


be worth while transporting men, even if the period were to be 18 months. The object in Germany is to have men there who are capable, if necessary, of carrying out basic military tasks, such as firing their rifles and so on. They are needed on the spot as a demonstration of force, and if these men are in Germany, they can satisfactorily carry out their training there. It in no way demolishes the argument in favour of 12 months' service, to say that these men will have to carry out part of their training in Germany. The fact remains that we shall be able to teach a man his basic job only, whether he is in the Army, Air Force, or in the Navy. We shall not require to weld him into formations, because the units and formations in which he is trained will not be those in which he will eventually have to fight.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I have listened to nearly every speech made in this Debate today, but I have not heard anything from any Member of the Socialist Party, including the Minister of Defence, which in any way justifies the reduction of the initial training period from 18 months to 12 months. In fact, many Members have argued that 18 months is no good; that 12 months is no good; that we might just as well have six months, that there should be no training at all and the country would be just as well off. What is the object of this Bill? We have been told by the Minister of Labour that because the voluntary system did not supply sufficient recruits for the three Services, it was necessary for this Bill to be introduced so that the Government could call up young men in this country between certain ages. It laid down a period of 18 months for initial training, so that the country would have at its disposal for an emergency, should one arise, a body of men, in its auxiliary Forces, on whom it could rely to take immediate action in such an emergency. That was a very important part of this Bill.
We have heard today, from the Minister of Defence, of the careful consideration which was given by the Chiefs of Staff, or their expert advisers, to the question of the time necessary for training men who are to be called up under this Bill. The Government put into the Bill a period of 18 months. Obviously, in their opinion, that was the minimum, and

not the maximum, time that was necessary for the initial training period. The 18 months' period was most categorically defended during the Second Reading. We have heard nothing at all today about the Navy, except a suggestion by a Socialist Member that those called up for the Navy should be trained in merchant ships—the most preposterous and ridiculous suggestion I have heard in the Debate. The Minister of Defence, who had a very nerve racking and anxious time as First Lord of the Admiralty during the war, and who knows what he is talking about, also said categorically that it would be impossible to train a seaman to be of any use under 18 months. Today, the Services are becoming more and more mechanised; they require an ever greater proportion of highly trained and skilled men. In no Service is that more necessary than His Majesty's Navy. I fully understand that it is necessary to have a time limit for the calling up of men for national service. I quite agree that the voluntary system is preferable, but there is no doubt that, at this time, this Bill is essential.
A great deal has been said as regards the economic position and the manpower position, and all the rest of it. All this information was at the disposal of the Government before the Second Reading of the Bill. It could not possibly have arisen between the Second Reading and 48 hours afterwards, when the Minister of Defence declared, "Oh, well, 18 months is no longer necessary; we will now have 12 months, which will do very well." That is a preposterous idea; it is misleading the country and is an absolute fraud. The reason why the period has been reduced from 18 to 12 months—and there is no doubt about it, whatever may be said by the Minister or anyone else in the Socialist Party—is that their supporters, or so-called supporters, who voted against the Bill on Second Reading, brought pressure to bear on the Government. The Government were afraid to act up to their responsibilities to the country and the national interests. They pandered to party considerations, placed their party before their country, and ran away from their national responsibilities. By so doing, they have forfeited the confidence of this country. No longer can it be said that this Government will govern in the real interests of the country; they will govern in the interests of party.
I am more than surprised that the Minister of Defence, who must have gone through terrible times when he was First Lord—and we must remember that he and the present Prime Minister, and the whole of the Socialist Party voted against conscription before the last war—

The Temporary Chairman: Will the hon and gallant Gentleman please confine himself to the Amendment—18 months or 12 months?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I was trying to show the unpreparedness with which we went into the last war and the war before, and to argue that it would be a disaster it we made the same appalling blunder of unpreparedness again. The way to avoid that blunder is to keep this 18 months' initial training in order that the object of the Bill may be fulfilled. It will not be fulfilled if there is only 12 months' training. Speech after speech has been made by hon. and gallant Members from this side of the Committee, pointing out from their own experiences during this war, the length of time which is required to train men; that 12 months is totally inadequate. Here we have the Socialist Party putting forward to the country the view that it is possible to train men in 12 months. They know perfectly well that that is not so. It is not true; it cannot be done. The Minister of Defence said, "Oh, well, we will get out a plan for training these people in 12 months. They will have greatly increased, intensive training." But it is not only that men have to be trained in the Army, the Air Force or the Navy as such; they have also to continue their educational training. It is to be presumed that they are to have their weekend leave, and night leave—so when is this intensive training to take place? How much of the time will really be given to training in the Services? To suggest that a seaman can be trained to be of any use in 12 months is absolute nonsense. He will begin to know one end of the ship from the other, that is all. He may be a hewer of wood and a drawer of water, but the wood will have to be mighty soft or he will not even be able to hew it. It is necessary for seamen to be trained that they should go to sea. You cannot train a seaman by keeping him ashore. Many hon. Members have spoken about the Army going overseas—nothing about the Navy. We must have the naval people go to sea to

be trained there. How much time is there to be for that? They are going to have courses ashore, but that will be no good; unless they also go to sea in order to be trained at sea, how much sea time will they have?
My time is up, but before I sit down I must say that I find it quite impossible to vote for the reduction of the period of service from 18 to 12 months, and although I am entirely in favour of this conscription Bill I will not vote for it, because I believe that by reducing the time from 18 to 12 months we are wasting the money of the public of this country. They will not get under this Bill with only 12 months' training the properly trained men to provide whom was the object for which this Bill was introduced. They will only get cannon fodder to be used at the outbreak of war. Therefore, I shall not be able to vote for this Clause with only 12 months' training.

8.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In the very short time at my disposal, I should like to associate myself very cordially with the useful point made by the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) who tried to help the Committee to realise that what we are faced with now is an entirely new conception of the way in which our military forces are going to be used. I am not going to traverse the ground that has already been adequately covered as to the propriety of back benchers daring to influence the Government to come to a particular conclusion. It seems to have come as a surprise to many hon. Members opposite that there were on this side of the Committee numbers of Members who believe that 12 months was as much as this country could afford to allocate for the purpose of maintaining some degree of armed force. So long ago as March of last year, in the Debate on defence policy, I ventured to suggest that one year's full time service at the age of r8 with the liability to rejoin annually for at least a fortnight until the age of 25 would probably satisfy our need.
We are now faced with bringing into effect a new conception of what really is the part which a Regular Army has to play in the defence of the country. The regular Army from now on, under this Bill, will become a training machine designed to turn out trained reservists for the Territorial Army. That is an inescapable role


with which the Army is now faced when this Bill goes on to the Statute Book, as it means that our overseas commitments have got to be covered as best we can with our available man-power resources. Who is there in this House so bold as to say that from 1950 onwards, we shall have on our shoulders exactly the same burden of commitments overseas as we have at the present time. That is an assumption which, if it were based upon fact would hold out an appalling prospect. The Territorial Army will be the organisation to provide refresher and reserve training for the national service men, after their initial period of soldiering has been done, and we shall have to secure the best possible training that can be squeezed into that period of 12 months. It is remarkable what can be done by concentrated training. I will quote only one example before I sit down, to show what results can be achieved. The training provided by the various cadet forces make a very useful contribution towards the kind of standard that we are trying to create. It has been discovered that while less than one-tenth of recent intakes in the Armed Forces consisted of people who have got some cadet or pre-Service training, over 50 per cent. of the candidates appearing before the War Office Selection Boards are men with some pre-Service training. To my mind that indicates what can be achieved by concentrated training, either of a pre-Service character or during the 12 months which this Bill is intended to provide. For that and many other reasons I, in common with many other hon. Members, warmly welcome the Government's decision to ask the Committee to agree with the Amendment which is now under discussion.

Mr. Eden: I have listened in the last period of this Debate to some very well-expressed arguments from both sides on the technical aspects of this question of how much or how little training can be crammed into 12 months, and what the value of that training may be as compared with what might be achieved in 18 months. I do not feel qualified, as others who have spoken in this Debate were qualified, to lay down the law on that issue, but I did think that the speeches by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), my hon. and

gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) threw a good deal of useful light on this discussion.
I must, however, reply to the hon. Member for Bexley. If I understood his argument, it was that there was no need to go further into the discussion of longer training because formations were not required as the result of this training. With respect, that is wrong—unless the Government have changed their minds again, which I can hardly believe. According to the Army Estimates for this year the provision of formations—not merely recruits—including an armoured and an airborne division, is one of the functions of this conscript reserve. If that is right, as I believe it is, I ask the Minister, when he replies, to tell us how much 60 days in six years will add to what has been achieved by the 12 months' training for these formations. It seems to me that either the Government must entirely revise their views upon what is to be achieved under conscription, or the period must he longer than the 12 months. That is all I have to say on the technical side of the matter.
I now ask the Committee's attention to the Debate we have had today. I think that whatever might have been our misgivings about the Government's decision before today, they have been greatly enhanced by everything that we have heard in this Debate and, above all, by two speeches—that of the Minister of Defence himself, and that of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) to which I propose to refer in a moment. If I had the gravest doubts as to the wisdom of the Government's decision in the early part of this afternoon, I am more than ever certain that the Committee is faced with an issue of real gravity now, and I am going to tell the Committee why. First of all, I must say that I have never seen the Minister of Defence look quite as unhappy as he did this afternoon. Gone was all that bluff quarterdeck manner with which we have become so familiar. I have watched him in the years which have gone by at the Admiralty, becoming more and more appropriately fitted for his nautical role. All that disappeared today. There he was, an unhappy apologist for an abject surrender.
In his speech the right hon. Gentleman produced not one single argument for the change that he is now asking the Committee to support, for every single statement he made in favour of 12 months could just as well have been made in March, as now. An hon. Gentleman said, with a loyalty which I respect in spite of his Front Bench, that it should be possible for an hon. Member of this House to accept what the Minister of Defence has to say on these defence issues. I could not agree with him more. That is precisely what we did a few weeks ago, and now look at the position we are in because the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind. There is nothing I would desire more to do than to place my complete confidence in the judgment of the Minister of Defence, but I am bound to say that that confidence is now absolutely zero.
As I listened this afternoon to the right hon. Gentleman developing his reasons for this change of policy, I could not believe that he could seriously ask the Committee to conclude that all those reflections had come upon the Government suddenly in the space of those 48 hours, and that they had never been able to think of any single one of them before. To ask the Committee to think that, is to ask the Committee to convict the Government of a degree of folly which it has never occurred to me to attribute to them. I tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly that I would have respected him more this afternoon if he had come down to the Committee and said, "I am taking this action because of a powerful minority in my party which has so ordered it." That is what happened. Everybody knows that is what happened. Every hon. Member on the benches opposite knows that that is what happened. Everybody in the country knows that is what happened.

Mr. Alexander: Mr. Alexander indicated dissent.

Mr. Eden: Why come down here and pretend, "I thought of this suddenly in those 48 hours. The light shone on me and I thought of this marvellous idea"? The right hon. Gentleman said that he had to give account to the weight of argument. There they are 85 arguments, on the benches behind him, their average weight probably about 11 stone 7 lb. That is just about all the argument there has been on this business.
The right hon. Gentleman produced—I make no complaint of the manner in which he sought to do it—every kind of pretext and excuse. He talked to us about the economic situation. We have all known about that for quite a long time. We have been talking about it and failing to get very much attention given to it. Did the economic situation suddenly undergo such a drastic change in those 48 hours? I wonder what did happen? What did we fail to sell, or what raw materials did we fail to get in those 48 hours to bring about this change of policy between 31st March and 3rd April? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what telegrams came in to cause such concern about the economic situation between those two magic dates. The right hon. Gentleman talked as though the statement he made in March was based on the situation last autumn. Once again he is making this Government appear more unworthy than I can really believe it is. Is the right hon. Gentleman really asking us to say that he came forward with proposals on this Bill at the end of March based on a review made in the autumn? I cannot believe that there has been such laxness on those benches. There must have been a review between the autumn and 31st March. Or are we to be told that the Bill was based on the survey of the economic situation and military requirements taken last autumn?' That is an ingenious argument, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will on reflection care to press it too far.
9.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) had one or two things to say on which I should like to comment. He asked why we on this side of the Committee favoured the period of 18 months, and he said that we had given no reasons. He is quite right. We did not give him any reasons. The Government gave us the reasons. They had the information which enabled them to give the reasons. The Government told us they wanted at least a year for training, and then six months for service overseas—That is what the Minister of Labour said, and I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he was talking sense, and that he meant what he said. So why should we give reasons?' The reasons were given. Our mistake was that we thought the Government meant what they said on 31st March.


Well, I apologise, and will try not to make that mistake again. The hon. Member for South Cardiff then said that the change was made for sound, fundamental reasons. I would like to know just one of those reasons. Did they discover between the Tuesday and the Thursday any one single reason which then emerged and caused the Government to change their minds, apart from the 85 reasons to which I have already referred?
I have rested my remarks on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. May I remind him of what he said in the Debate on 31st March—not very long ago, after all. I thought it a very clear statement of the position. This matter of 18 months versus 12 was fully debated in the Second Reading Debate and no one dealt with it more faithfully and, I thought, more adequately than the Minister of Labour. I will quote what he, said. I am sure the words are fresh in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I can see from the expression on his face that he knows what is coming. He said:
We hope that it may be possible"—
a very proper hope—
to shorten the period of service. There are two ways in which that may be achieved. First, we may find that the campaign to attract young men will be more successful than it has been.
I ask the Government, Was the campaign to attract young men more successful in those 48 hours than it had been, and if so, to what extent was it successful? We should like to have the figures of the success of that campaign. [Laughter.] I am quite serious about it. I want to know the figures of the success of voluntary recruiting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am dealing with the reasons given by a Minister of the Crown why he could not agree to 12 months as opposed to 18, and there were just two reasons. The first was that he said he had not yet got the voluntary recruits and I ask, Did he get them in those 48 hours and, if not, why is that reason which he then gave not operative tonight? He went on to say:
Many of the young men called up to do their 18 months' service may find the Services so attractive to them that they may desire to continue in them … for a fixed period longer than their 18 months.

Then he goes on to his second reason. I must invite the Committee to concentrate on this because it is important. He said:
Secondly, our overseas defence commitments may be so changed as to make it unnecessary for us to have the Forces which we now think are going to be necessary; but this is too indefinite for the Government to assume for the purposes of national planning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1947; Vol. 435, c 1679 and 1680.]
I ask the Government, on this issue, Where are we on this matter of our national commitments? Here is the Minister of Labour on 31st March saying quite clearly, "I cannot agree to 12 months, first of all because I have not the necessary voluntary recruits, and, secondly, because of our international commitments." And the Minister of Defence, a week or two afterwards, comes down to the House and says that 12 months is the right period. We must know what is the truth about this matter of our commitments.
Here I come to the remarkable speech of the Debate, the speech of "His Master's Voice," the hon. Member for East Coventry. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard that speech. It was a very able speech, and with some of it I do not disagree, but the arguments it introduced put this Debate on an entirely different plane. We must really ask the Government, as a result of that speech, to reply to certain questions. First of all, the hon. Gentleman referred to the balance of trade having affected this decision. He knows, as well as I do, that the balance of trade did not change in those 48 hours. I agree entirely with his warnings about the balance of trade and the rate at which we are spending our dollar resources. Some of us on this side have talked about it a great many times without much encouragement. But he is not going to pretend to me that the whole of our resources changed in 48 hours in a way to justify the Government's decision.
The hon. Member went on to give another reason for the change, and here I want the right hon. Gentleman to give a clear answer. "His Master's Voice" said that the Government had slowly discovered that the foreign policy and the defence policy of the country were beyond the strength of the country, and that that was why the change was being made.


Is that true? We must have an answer on that. Is it true that in some way our foreign policy and defence policy have been modified? The Committee has been told nothing of this. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to it in his speech, and yet the hon. Member, who often proves to be right in his view of what the Government are going to do later, said that this had happened. Did it really happen in the 48 hours, while the Foreign Secretary was in Moscow? Did the Government decide there was a change in the commitments they had to carry? I hope I have not misinterpreted what the hon. Member said—

Mr. Crossman: I think the right hon. Member will find in HANSARD that what I said was that in my view this decision meant that the Government admitted that in 1950 or 1951, no great British Army could be maintained in the Middle East.

Mr. Eden: I took down the hon. Member's words—

Mr. Crossman: I may have said both—

Mr. Eden: I do not know about 1950 or 1951. but he said they had slowly discovered that the foreign policy and defence policy of the country would be beyond the strength of the country. I want to know where we are. If there has been this modification in our defence and foreign policy, we must be told what it is. I give the hon. Member this present, that his attitude is completely logical. If he has forced on the Government a change of foreign policy or defence policy—it might be that they required less force on 2nd April than on 31st March—that is something of which the country should be aware, and certainly something of which the Government have not given the slightest hint. I was asked why, if we had no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's judgment on defence issues, we voted for 18 months, and accepted his judgment on that. I will tell the Committee why we did that. It was because we believed, and sincerely believed, that in their Second Reading speeches the Ministers were speaking the truth and stating to the House what they believed to be the real case. I equally believe that this Amendment is, in the words of an hon. Member on the other side of the Committee, a surrender to a tiny minority. Therefore, we prefer to stand by what was

the Government's decision when they were acting in their own mind, and their own strength.
The hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) said something to which I must refer. He said that if the occasion required, the Government could come back to us to extend the period beyond 12 months. The whole point of the original proposal was a ceiling of 18 months. The Government were not compelled to go to 18 months. It is, in all senses, a political decision forced by a minority of the party opposite. I am not complaining that the Government sometimes read what their supporters say. What is incomprehensible to us, is the reasons for this Government change, and absolutely none have been given. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would make a much more convincing statement today. The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) made a good point about not sending these men overseas before they are 19. But what is going to happen now? They will have to go overseas before they are 19, or else the commitments will not be fulfilled.
Before asking the Committee to address itself to the question of what is to be the effect of this Amendment, I wish, on the foreign aspect of this matter, to tell the right hon. Gentleman that what has been said by the hon. Member for East Coventry—this hint that there has been some fundamental change in our foreign policy and defence commitments—seems to me so important as to underline the need for an early Debate on foreign affairs. We must hear what the Foreign Secretary himself has to say on these matters. I hope that the Government, in arranging Business, will take account of that.
I come to the effect of this Amendment. I must presume that voluntary recruiting had not improved in this 48 hours, and that our commitments had not been modified. I assume that, for the sake of seeing the effect of the decision. On that assumption, we are going to try to fulfil the same commitments with fewer men who have been less well trained. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that occupation duties are not always light. We were told by the Minister of Labour, I think, that it was in the last six months of their 18 months that men were to serve abroad. Now, they will have to give their service while undergoing the second half of their


training. That is not very satisfactory. It is not satisfactory from the point of view of the training on which the Government are to base their reserve. Nor is it very satisfactory for the man who has to carry out difficult duties when only half trained. If the Government do not fulfil their commitments with too few men, who are too little trained, the only alternative will be to scrap the commitments. That is where we are. However welcome a reduction of our commitments might be to a small minority in this Committee, it will be deplorable to the majority of this Committee, who do not wish to see a surrender of our position.
Only one logical explanation has been given tonight of what the Government have done. That was given by the hon. Member for East Coventry, namely, that they are contemplating, in some measure or other, a reduction of our commitments and a modification of our foreign policy. If the Government have that in mind, it will, in my opinion, be disastrous. I cannot think that they have it in mind, and if they have not, they should say so tonight, and also produce more convincing reasons for this, so far inexplicable, modification of policy. This decision is a surrender to a minority in the right hon. Gentleman's party which will have calamitous consequences. I do not know what the Foreign Secretary thought in Moscow when he heard the decision. I can imagine how it facilitated his task. I know how I should have felt had I been in his place.
We should have a system which is going to work and provide the kind of force which will support our foreign policy and our obligations to the United Nations. I feel that the Government meant that, when they made their proposal for 18 months; I still believe that they did mean it. I still stand by the vote I gave then, and so do my hon. Friends. Because the right hon. Gentleman has changed, we have not changed. I beg him, on account of the far larger consequences of this step, to make clear tonight where we are in respect of our foreign policy and our commitments. I beg him to try to give a reply which will bring comfort to many who must have been made uneasy by the course of a Debate which has reflected no credit on His Majesty's Government, and is a menace for the future of our land.

9.15 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): We have had a fairly lengthy Debate upon this matter and I hope that soon we can make progress with this Clause. I must say I have no complaint to make about the tone of the speech just addressed to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) who, presumably, has put up the only really effective set of consecutive arguments against the policy of the Government during the whole of the Debate. I will give him credit for that and presently I would like to say a few words about his speech. First, I would like to say a word or two about a speech addressed to the Committee as soon as I had moved the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Almost at the outset of his speech he showed how completely irrelevant he can be at times to the matter which is being debated, by making a long quotation from HANSARD of 20th May which anybody could tell, if they examined it, had nothing at all to do with the principle or the facts of the National Service Bill.
What he was quoting from was a speech which I made in the Debate on the Defence White Paper and the whole of the remarks which he quoted me as having addressed to the House were addressed with regard to the preparation of the Service Estimates for 1947. The whole of the long quotation he made was completely irrelevant to the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the Bill with which we are dealing now relates to something concerned with long-term policy which only becomes operative under this Bill during the years 1949 to 1950. The whole of the argument he quoted was addressed to the financial year of 1947. It was absolutely irrelevant.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious about the provision which the Labour Government seek to make for the defence of our country, I wish he would be more consistent in some of the speeches he makes on the matter He has made great play with the fact—and he does not blame us for it, I admit that—that we have made what he calls a political decision on this issue. In the speech which he quo Led of 20th March I said what process had been followed with the Cabinet and with the Chiefs of Staff on the


Estimates, and within a few days of that he was saying that these Estimates were indicative of our incompetence and inefficiency and that he would have liked to have got at these Estimates with a red pencil, with which he could have saved scores of millions. I find that kind of comment upon our defence position today completely inconsistent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—with the kind of arguments which have been put up today from the opposite side of the Committee about the defence of our country.
The right hon. Gentleman made some very great strictures upon what he described as the running away from and giving way to political pressure. I suppose that he would know as much as most people in the House of Commons about giving way to political pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) made reference tonight to an incident in connection with the Budget of 1937. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ten years ago."] If we are being attacked upon whether or not we give way to political pressure by those who have given way to political pressure before. surely, we are entitled to answer. [HON. MEMBERS; "Is this relevant?"] It is quite relevant to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford. I have never found him unwilling to hear answers to the attacks he makes upon people. He is very good at making attacks and also he is quite willing to receive any reply that comes. He made a special appeal to the Prime Minister of the day, and I will quote from his speech, which was a sort of relic of his own past as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
Perhaps the House may remember that only seven or eight years ago I got into some trouble myself about the Kerosene Tax. It was a very good tax. I was quite right about it. My right hon. Friend slipped it through a year or two later without the slightest trouble, and it never ruined the homes of the people at all. Anyhow, the Chief Whip of those days telephoned me—
[Interruption.] I have been charged with giving way to political pressure, and I am trying to quote incidents from the right hon. Gentleman's past—
I was resting in the country after the Budget speech. The Chief Whip said, 'You had better come up, all our fellows are against the tax, and all the others, too.' I do not know whether any similar communication has been made by the present occupant of that

most important office. Anyhow, I acted with great promptitude. I came up to London immediately. It was said to be very difficult to withdraw the Kerosene Tax—
[Interruption.] I have listened all day without making any interruptions. I think I am entitled to put my case. I will continue:
I came up to London immediately. It was said to be very difficult to withdraw the Kerosene Tax—
[Laughter.] What are hon Members laughing about?

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Has this reference to what happened in the past anything to do with this Bill?

The Chairman: I am waiting to see.

Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman continued:
It was said to me by the experts, who so often turn out to be wrong, to be impossible to withdraw it without wrecking the whole of the oil tax, which was a very good tax … I came down to the House in the nick of time. Lord Snowden—Mr. Snowden he was then—was rising full of pent-up, overwhelming fury, to fall upon me. I got up. I withdrew the tax. Was I humiliated? Was I called weak? Was I accused of running away? Not at all There were loud and prolonged cheers. Not only did people say, 'How clever; how quick; how very well he has outwitted them'; but others came along and said, 'How very right it is to meet with respect the opinion of the House of Commons.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1937; Vol. 324. c. 892.]

Mr. Churchill: I have never questioned the right of the House to influence and shape Budgets and legislation, but here it is a question of the safety of the country.

Mr. Alexander: All the last quotation that I have been making was in relation to a speech, a very powerful speech, which the right hon. Gentleman made on that Budget, when he was pleading for a proper reconstruction and a better form of taxation for meeting the defence provisions of the country. That is what I am quoting, and as it was in connection with the defence of the country, I would like to quote one other short passage The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon made grave reflections upon my leader. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is that?"] That may be regarded as very humorous in an Oxford Union atmosphere, but not here The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon suggested that my leader, the Prime Minister, had been weak in this matter. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman


that in this very speech, addressing himself to the late Mr. Chamberlain who had then just become Prime Minister, he said:
I hope that my right hon. Friend, at the outset of his Premiership, will show the flexibility and resiliency of mind, and the necessary detachment from personal and departmental aspects, to enable him to take the simple, bold, manly decision which good sense, Parliamentary opinion, and, as far as I can judge, the interest of the nation, urgently require."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1937; vol. 324, c. 897.]
I have no doubt whatsoever that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken a right decision on this occasion, having ascertained the views and opinions not only of the House, but of every part of the country, and of the leaders of his own party.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: In 48 hours?

Mr. Alexander: I have already said this afternoon, in reply to that parrot cry which I have heard so often today, that we have had this matter under consideration for months, and that the position which we arrived at finally has been building up for some time.
Now, I propose to refer to some of the points made in the Debate. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) put a number of points with which I shall not have time to deal, but I want to refer to one in particular, namely, his question about training in Germany. The scheme under the Bill, of course, does not come into operation until 1949, and it will be well on in 1949, several weeks or months, before any of the new recruits will be in Germany. We shall, of course, have to draw up plans specifically designed to meet that new situation, and we shall bear in mind just that kind of consideration which he brought to my notice today. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn)—and, incidentally—be replying to a specific question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington at the same time—that it would be quite untrue to suggest that the decision the Government have taken in altering the submissions to Parliament as to the length of the period of whole-time service has anything to do with the question of surrendering on foreign policy. There is no surrender on foreign policy, as was suggested, none at all, but I am bound to add, as I tried

to explain this afternoon, that it is quite certain that, because of the change in the period, there will be greater difficulties in meeting the garrison situation overseas. We would only propose to use the overseas part of the period of full-time training of the men called up under the Bill in the near stations such as Germany, and, therefore, the more distant stations will have to be manned, as the present Forces run down, by Regular troops. On that basis, we have taken the risk that between now and 1950 the situation in regard to our commitments will be improved.
9.30 p.m.
That is a political decision we have taken, and I do not think it will entitle the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington to say that we have done something disastrous in that matter. We shall rely more, after 1949 and 1948, in these overseas stations, upon the use of regular troops. I said earlier that we have already seen an improvement in the rate of recruitment to the regular forces. We shall do our best to increase the rate of recruitment sufficiently for that purpose, but that does not alter in any sense the case we have submitted to the House and to this Committee for this Bill; that we also wish to have, in view of the uncertain state of the world, and until we get more stable conditions under the United Nations organisation, and better agreement in international affairs, adequate reserves, and adequate reserves cannot be provided in the time covered by this Bill on any other basis than the method of compulsory service laid down in this Measure.

Mr. Eden: This is a matter of the greatest significance to us all. The Minister of Labour—I have got the quotation here—made it quite plain, on 31st March, that the reason why he could not agree to the cut was our overseas commitments. That was the reason. The right hon. Gentleman now says that we can agree to 12 months. I am bound to ask what overseas commitments we are throwing overboard as a result of that decision.

Mr. Alexander: I said quite distinctly that we are not throwing overboard any overseas commitments. There is certainly no change in foreign policy. I said that the military changes which will be brought about by the change in period will certainly not be operative until 1950, and


that we hope in that period there will be an improvement in the position with regard to the overseas commitments we have had to undertake. We have taken a risk on that, and I was careful to say in my speech today, in submitting the case for this Amendment, that if the position, in spite of our plans in this direction, deteriorates, we shall have to look at the matter afresh, and the Committee may be quite certain that the Government, if they had to deal with that situation, would take all necessary steps. [Laughter.] Evidently that is a matter for laughter. I have heard some pretty hard words said today by Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman was not very selective in his language, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) used the word "Quisling," which is so objectionable to any decent democrat in this country, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said that by my action, in being associated with the reduction in compulsory service from 18 to 12 months, I might be blamed on any future occasion for the erection of wooden crosses. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear the chorus of approval of language of that kind from Members of the Conservative Party. I would ask any Member in the party opposite this: When did their party have sufficient courage in peacetime to stand up in this House, and defend the kind of Measure I am defending now?

Mr. Churchill: Less than two months before the outbreak of war, the Conservative Government of those days proposed conscription, and the Leader of the party opposite, followed by his followers, trooped into the Lobby against it.

Mr. Alexander: Just let me examine what that means. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Two months before the outbreak of war." I think it was in April, 1939. Already a state of emergency had arisen. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had been pleading, many of us, month after month, and year after year, for real preparation for collective security. I said over and over again myself in the House, at that time, that if the Government would adopt a proper policy of collective security—[Interruption.] Even the Measure which the right hon. Gentleman opposite quotes provided for only six months' training, just before the outbreak

of war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your party voted against it."] I ask hon. Members opposite to bring their minds to bear on the argument. I am being charged tonight by language of the kind used by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, and the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing, with being likely to be responsible for a future war when I am defending the first conscription Measure of its kind ever introduced in a reasonably normal peace period, and for doubling the length of full-time training that was provided for in the Measure quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford. There is no basis at all for the kind of language which has been used against me tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford has indicated that his party still support the principle of the Bill. I welcome that support in getting this Bill passed, which will give us the same number of reserves as we should have had if the Amendment had not been moved. The question whether these reserves will be as well trained as they would be in 18 months, is a proper subject for argument and debate. I have paid attention to what has been said, but I do not think that Members opposite have paid enough attention to all that I said in defence of the Government's reduction of the period to 12 months. The case I put was this: that in the light of the economic situation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Forty-eight hours after the Second Reading."] Many Members opposite have not been here during most of the day. I have listened to those who have spoken without once interrupting, and they are not being very courteous now. I have already stated that the economic position had worsened from the time when the Bill was first in draft, and that we reconsidered the whole position in the light of the four successive Debates in the House. I said that we were entitled to reconsider the position from that point of view, to get a proper balance in the new situation between our economic requirements and what we could afford, in those circumstances, for our defence requirements. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford had been here when I dealt with the reference he made the other day to costs, when he said that he would like to get at our Estimates with a red 'pencil, because he could save scores of millions of pounds.
Here is a way in which actually we shall be saving money with regard to the training. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the expense of defence."] I will deal with that. We shall be saving money at the rate of many millions a year on the number of conscripts called up under the National Service Act for training. The cost of the Forces will be very much cheaper. As regards the results of training, I can appreciate the arguments put up on behalf of the specialist corps, like the Armoured Corps and others, as to the time which it takes to train men, but a great deal of the kind of specialist units quoted by the hon. Member for Worthing will be provided in the future either by regulars, or by ex-wartime regulars who will, I believe, enlist in the Territorials under the new recruiting campaign which we are conducting for that force. With regard to the use of those called up under the National Service Act, I have already stated that we want to improve the efficiency of the selection and the posting of the men to their units so that they will be used, as far as possible, in the trades and occupations to which they have been accustomed, and to which they are likely to return in civil life. On that basis, I believe that all the staffs will work hard,

and that they will accept the view of this House and do their best to make the scheme work in the interests of the defence of the country. I believe that we can so work this training scheme as to lose very little indeed in the value of the training which we otherwise would have got under the longer 18 months' period by this method of selection and the use of the men in their proper spheres. We shall do that to the very best of our ability, and make that drive all the way through. In the meantime, we can undoubtedly say that we shall be helped a very great deal in the general manpower situation, which we shall have to face in the next few years, if we are to recover our economic position. I repeat what I said this afternoon, and in the White Paper on Defence, that one of the roots of our defence policy must be the rehabilitation of our economic and social life.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 170.

Division No. 187.]
AYES.
[9.44 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Buchanan, G.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Burden, T. W.
Dye, S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Burke, W. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Callaghan, James
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Alpass, J. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Chater, D.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Austin, H. Lewis
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Awbery, S. S.
Cobb, F. A.
Ewart, R.


Ayles, W. H.
Cocks, F. S.
Fairhurst, F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Coldrick, W.
Farthing, W. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Collindridge, F.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Baird, J.
Collins, V. J.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Balfour, A.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Follick, M.


Barstow, P. G.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Foot, M. M.


Barton, C.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Forman, J. C.


Battley, J. R.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Corvedale, Viscount
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Crawley, A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Berry, H.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gibbins, J.


Beswick, F.
Daggar, G.
Gibson, C. W


Bing, G. H. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gilzean, A.


Blackburn, A. R.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gooch, E. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Goodrich, H. E.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gordon-Walker, P. C


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Grenfell, D. R.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Deer, G.
Grey, C. F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Bramall, E. A.
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Diamond, J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Dodds, N N.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Brown, George (Belper)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Gunter, R. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Guy, W. H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Haire, John E (Wycombe)




Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Skinnard, F. W.


Hall, W. G.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Marquand, H. A.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Hardman, D. R.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Hardy, E. A.
Martin, J. H.
Solley, L. J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mikardo, Ian
Sparks, J. A.


Hewitson, Captain M.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Stamford, W.


Hobson, C. R.
Mitchison, G. R
Steele, T.


Holman, P.
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Moody, A. S.
Strachey, J.


House, G.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hoy, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stubbs, A. E.


Hubbard, T.
Morrison, RI Hon. H. (L'wish'm, E.)
Swingler, S.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.
Symonds, A. L.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Nally, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Naylor, T- E.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Irving, W. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Janner, B.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Jay, D. P. T.
O'Brien, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Oldfield, W. H
Tiffany, S


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Oliver, G. H.
Timmons, J.


John, W.
Paget, R. T.
Titterington, M. F.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Tolley, L.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pargiter, C. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Parker, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Keenan, W.
Parkin, B. T.
Viant, S. P.


Key, C. W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Walkden, E.


King, E. M.
Pearson, A.
Walker, G. H.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Kinley, J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Watson, W. M.


Kirby, B. V
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Lang, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Weitzman, D.


Lavers, S.
Pritt, D. N.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Proctor, W. T.
West, D. G.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pryde, D. J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Leonard, W.
Randall, H. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Leslie, J. R.
Ranger, J.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Lever, N. H.
Rankin, J.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Levy, B. W.
Reeves, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Richards, R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lindgren, G. S.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Robens, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McAdam, W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Williamson, T.


McAllister, G.
Rogers, C. H. R.
Willis, E.


McEntee, V. La T.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


McGhee, H. G.
Scollan, T.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


McGovern, J.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wise, Major F. J


Mack, J. D.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Woodburn, A.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sharp, Granville
Woods, G. S


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Wyatt, W.


McKinlay, A. S
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Yates, V. F.


McLeavy, F.
Shurmer, P.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Zilliacus, K.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Simmons, C. J.



Mainwaring, W. H.
Skeffington, A. M
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Amory, D. Heathcote
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E


Astor, Hon. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crowder, Capt. John E


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Baxter, A. B.
Butcher, H. W.
Davidson, Viscountess


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)


Beechman, N. A.
Byers, Frank
Digby, S. W.


Bennett, Sir P.
Carson, E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Birch, Nigel
Channon, H.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P W


Boothby, R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Drayson, G. B.


Bowen, R.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Drewe, C.


Bower, N.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)




Eccles, D. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Eden, Rt. Hon, A.
Lipson, D. L.
Raikes, H. V.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ramsay, Major S.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Renton, D.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Gage, C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Ropner, Col. L.


Gammans, L. D.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sanderson, Sir F.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Glyn, Sir R.
MacLeod, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Snadden, W. M.


Grant, Lady
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gridley, Sir A
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Spence, H. R.


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Haughton, S. G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Sutcliffe, H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Maude, J. C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Herbert, Sir A. P.
Medlicott, F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir J.
Teeling, William


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hollis, M. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Hope, Lord J.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Touche, G. C.


Howard, Hon. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)
Wadsworth, G.


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Nicholson, G.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Jennings, R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Keeling, E. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Kendall, W. D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O,
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pickthorn, K.
York, C.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I. J.



Langford-Holt, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Mr. Studholme and


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Major Conant.

Question put accordingly, "That 'eighteen' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 311.

Division No. 188]
AYES.
[9.55 p.m.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Astor, Hon. M.
Drewe, C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jennings, R.


Baxter, A. B.
Eccles, D. M.
Keeling, E. H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H


Beechman, N. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bennett, Sir P.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Birch, Nigel
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Langford-Holt, J.


Boothby, R.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bower, N.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gage, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Gammons, L. D.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Gates, Maj E. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Butcher, H. W.
Grant, Lady
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Gridley, Sir A.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Carson, E.
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Channon, H.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Houghton, S. G.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
MacLeod, J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hollis, M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Marples, A. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hope, Lord J.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Digby, S. W.
Howard, Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)




Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Raikes, H. V.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Maude, J. C.
Ramsay, Major S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Medlicott, F.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Teeling, William


Mellor, Sir J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Molson, A. H. E.
Renton, D. 
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Ropner, Col. L.
Touche, G. C.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Vane, W. M. F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Scott, Lord W.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Nicholson, G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Smithers, Sir W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Snadden, W. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Spence, H. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pickthorn, K.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
York, C.


Pitman, I. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)



Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Commander Agnew and


Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Mr. Studholme.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Sutcliffe, H.





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hewitson, Captain M.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hobson, C. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Holman, P.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
House, G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Deer, G.
Hoy, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hubbard, T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Diamond, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Awbery, S. S.
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Ayles, W. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bacon, Miss A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Irving, W. J.


Baird, J
Durbin, E. F. M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Balfour, A.
Dye, S.
Janner, B.


Barstow, P. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jay, D. P. T.


Barton, C.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Battley, J. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
John, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Berry, H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Beswick, F.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Bing, G. H. C.
Ewart, R.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Blackburn A. R.
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Blenkinsop, A.
Farthing, W. J.
Keenan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Kendall, W. D.


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Key, C. W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Follick, M.
King, E. M.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Foot, M. M.
Kinley, J.


Bowen, R.
Forman, J. C.
Kirby, B. V.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lang, G.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Lavers, S.


Bramall, E. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J J


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Lee, F, (Hulme)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Brown, George (Belper)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leonard, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Gibbins, J.
Leslie, J. R.


Buchanan, G.
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, N. H.


Burden, T. W.
Gilzean, A.
Levy, B. W.


Burke, W. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Byers, Frank
Gooch, E. G.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Callaghan, James
Goodrich, H. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Carmichael, James
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Champion, A. J.
Grey, C. F.
Lipson, D. L.


Chater, D.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Logan, D. G.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McAdam, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McAllister, G.


Cocks, F. S.
Gunter, R. J.
McEntee, V. La T.


Coldrick, W.
Guy, W. H
McGhee, H. G.


Collindridge, F.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McGovern, J.


Collins, V. J.
Hale, Leslie
Mack, J. D.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hall, W. G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hamilton, Liout.-Col. R.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
McKinlay, A. S.


Corvedale, Viscount
Hardman, D. R
McLeavy, F.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hardy, E. A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mainwaring, W. H.




Mallalieu, J. P W
Rankin, J
Thurtle, Ernest


Mann, Mrs. J.
Reeves, J
Tiffany, S.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Timmons, J


Marquand, H. A.
Richards, R.
Titterington, M. F


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Ridealgh, Mrs M
Tolley, L.


Messer, F
Robens, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Middleton, Mrs. [...]
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Mitchison, G. R.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Viant, S. P.


Monslow, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wadsworth, G


Moody, A. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Walkden, E


Morgan, Dr. H. B
Sharp, Granville
Walker, G. H.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Watson, W. M.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Shurmer, P
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Weitzman, D.


Nally, W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Naylor, T- E.
Simmons, C. J.
West, D. G.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Skeffington, A. M
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Skinnard, F. W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


O'Brien, T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Oldfield, W. H
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt C A B


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Paget, R. T.
Solley, L. J
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Soskice, Maj Sir F
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Pargiter, G. A.
Stamford, W
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Parker, J.
Steele, T.
Williamson, T.


Parkin, B. T.
Stephen, C.
Willis, E.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Pearson, A.
Strachey, J.
Wise, Major F J


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Woodburn, A


Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Stubbs, A. E
Woods, G. S.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Swingler, S.
Wyatt, W.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Sylvester, G. O.
Yates, V. F.


Pritt, D. N.
Symonds, A. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Zilliacus, K.


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)



Randall, H. E
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R (Ed'b'gh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ranger, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Mr. Snow and Mr Popplewell.

Question put, "That 'twelve' be there inserted."

Division No 189.]
AYES.
[10.7 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bower, N.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bowles, F G (Nuneaton)
Corvedale, Viscount


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Cuthbert, W. N.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G
Daines, P


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Bramall, E A.
Dalton, Rt Hon. H.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Astor, Hon. M.
Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Bruce, Major D. W. T.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Austin, H. Lewis
Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T
Delargy, H. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W A.
Diamond, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Butcher, H. W.
Digby, S. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Dodds, N N.


Bairo, J.
Callaghan, James
Dodds-Parker, A. D


Baldwin, A E
Castle, Mrs B. A
Drayson, G. B.


Balfour, A.
Champion, A. J
Drewe, C.


Barstow, P. G
Channon, H.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Barton, C.
Chaser, D.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Dumpleton, C. W


Beechman, N. A.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Durbin, E. F. M


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Dye, S.


Berry, H.
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Eccles, D. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cobb, F. A
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blackburn, A. R
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Blenkinsop, A.
Collindridge, F
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J.
Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)


Boardman, H.
Colman, Miss G. M
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bottomley, A. G.
Comyns, Dr. L
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bowden Flg.-Offr. H W
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

*See OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, Col. 1101.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 368*; Noes, 17.

Ewart, R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Fairhurst, F.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Farthing, W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Sargood, R.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lipson, D. L.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Foot, M. M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sharp, Granville


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Logan, D. G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Holens)


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McAdam, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
McAllister, G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Skinnard, F. W.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Gammons, L. D.
Mack, J. D.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Gibbins, J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Solley, L. J.


Gibson, C. W
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Gilzean, A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sparks, J. A.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McKinlay, A. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Glyn, Sir R.
Maclay; Hon. J. S
Spence, H. R.


Gooch, E. G.
McLeavy, F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon O.


Goodrich, H. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Steele, T.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grant, Lady
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Strachey, J.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Grimston, R V.
Marples, A. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Marquand, H. A.
Swingler, S.


Gunter, R. J.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Sylvester, G. O.


Guy, W. H.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Symonds, A. L.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Medlicott, F.
Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)


Hale, Leslie
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, W. G.
Messer, F.
Teeling, William


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molson, A H. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Harvey. Air-Comdre. A. V.
Moody, A. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Tiffany, S.


Hewitson, Captain M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Titterington, M. F.


Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.
Tolley, L.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hollis, M. C.
Naylor, T. E.
Touche, G. C.


Holman, P.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholson, G.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


House, G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Viant, S. P.


Hoy, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Walkden, E


Hubbard, T.
O'Brion, T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Warbey, W N


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Watson, W M.


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) 


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paget, R. T.
Weitzman, D.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Irving, W. J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
West, D. G.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Jay, D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Parkin, B. T.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pearson, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Keenan, W.
Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Key, C. W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


King, E. M.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williamson, T.


Kinley, J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Willis, E.


Kirby, B. V.
Pritt, D. N.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Lambert, Hon. G
Proctor, W. T.
Wise, Major F. J.


Lang, G.
Pryde, D. J.
Woodburn, A.


Lavers, S.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woods, G. S.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Ramsay, Major S.
Wyatt, W


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ranger, J.
York, C.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lennox-Boyd, A T
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Leonard, W.
Richards, R.
Zilliacus, K.


Leslie, J. R.
Robens, A.



Lever, N. H.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Levy, B. W.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell







NOES.


Ayles, W. H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Stephen, C.


Bowen, R.
Kendall, W. D.
Wadsworth, G.


Carmichael, James
Longden, F.
Yates, V. F.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McGhee, H. G.



Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGovern, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Mr. Byers and


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Rankin. J.
Mr. Emrys Roberts.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert:
Provided always that all those exempted from service or whose service is deferred or postponed under this Act, or any regulation under this Act, shall on reaching the age of twenty-six years be deemed to have discharged all their liabilities under this Act and shall not be liable for any further service under this Act.
I think all hon. Members will agree that the introduction of conscription in this country places a substantial burden not only upon individuals from a personal point of view but also upon the national economy as a whole. Because of that, I suggest that it is important that in regard to the period of liability there should be a distinct element of finality. Under this Clause as it stands a person may be liable for military service for five, 10 or 20 years after his original liability had arisen. That is to say, a person who becomes 18 after January, 1949, and who for some reason has his service deferred or postponed, will remain liable to fulltime service for an indefinte period.
The Amendment would leave a substantial margin. There would still be eight years—the period from 18 to 26. A person's liability under the Measure 'would cease on his attaining the age of 26. Let us assume that, under the Bill, regulations are introduced to defer or postpone the calling up of agricultural workers or miners. An agricultural worker or a miner who reached the age of 18 on 1st January, 1949, might remain in agriculture or in the mines for 10 years and then leave agriculture or the mines for 10 or 20 years. Under the terms of the Bill, he would then have to undergo the necessary amount of military training. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I should be pleased if the Minister would indicate why.
I can appreciate the arguments for deferring or postponing the calling up of people in particular industries. The grounds may not be sound or logical, but they may be expedient for reasons of national necessity. It may be argued that the fact that a miner or agricultural worker

would have his service deferred is a very proper inducement to people to enter those occupations, but I suggest that one cannot justify this state of affairs indefinitely as a means of making people stay in the industry in respect of which they have been deferred or postponed. If the Government take the view, "Once a miner, always a miner," or "Once an agricultural worker, always an agricultural worker," this is not the way to produce that result. Such a policy would be pernicious, and if this provision is an indirect backdoor way of attempting to do this, it is open to strong objections. The Bill puts a penalty on persons who, for reasons best known to themselves, choose to leave an industry in respect of which they have obtained deferment or postponement. It may be said that it is necessary in order to avoid people entering an industry for the purpose of getting deferment and then leaving that industry when it suits them to do so. I suggest that the limit of 26 years provides an ample safeguard in that respect. It means that a person will need to have spent at least eight years in a particular industry since he first became liable to service under this Bill. To suggest, therefore, that a man will go into an industry to obtain deferment, remain in that industry for eight years and then, on leaving it at any time subsequently, should be liable to be called upon for service is, to my mind, introducing an entirely unreasonable penalty. If that is so, I suggest that this is the Essential Works Order in a particularly vicious form.
There is another point in this connection. If I am right in thinking that a person who has been deferred can he called upon to do service, either whole-time or part-time, after the age of 26, the question arises whether that is sound from a military or an economic point of view. In other words, whether to train men for the first time after they have reached the age of 30 years, for example, is in fact a good proposition. I suggest that persons of that age have too short an expectation of military life for the military people to trouble about training them at that age. It would


be a waste of time from the military point of view and, particularly, from the economic point of view. Men of that age are reaching positions of responsibility in the industries in which they happen to be engaged, and they have commitments which make it desirable that they should be free of all obligations for full time military training.
The point I am trying to make is that this Bill should provide a definite age limit for the obligations it imposes, that it does not do so at the moment, and that the reasonable age would be 26. If I am wrong in asserting that under the Bill as it now stands a person might be recalled for service after the age of 26, I hope the Minister will say so when he replies. If I am not wrong, I should like the Minister to indicate what justification there is for an indefinite limit to the liabilities under this Bill. It occurs to me that one might be faced with a position of this kind. A miner might work for eight or nine years—or even less—in the mines and then be told by his doctors that his medical condition was such that he should not continue to work there. That man might still be sufficiently fit to be able to do military training. What is to happen to him if he leaves the mines on medical advice? Will he be recalled to carry out his obligations under this Bill, or will his deferment be continued? If it is to be continued, what will be the principle? I mention that as an illustration, but I should like the Minister to say whether I am right in my assertion and, if I am, to tell the Committee how he can possibly justify the circumstances in which the liability under the Bill should be of such an indefinite character.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Perhaps it would help the Committee if I gave an explanation of what the Amendment does. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment left us very much confused. The hon. Member has really not studied the Bill. Frankly, he got a little mixed up with deferments and postponements. He has omitted to say that this postponement gives 26 as the age limit. His Amendment, which is what we are dealing with, is to give privilege and preference to anybody who has got a deferment. That privilege and preference would go to those who are already in the most advantageous circumstances. Let us assume, for example, that

an apprentice has decided that he would finish his training before he is called up and therefore gets three years' deferment. He is called up and does one year's service and you knock three years off as reserve. Take the extreme case of a student, perhaps going into the medical profession, who has obtained deferment until he is aged 25. He comes up and does his one year's service. Having done that one year's service and reached the age of 26, he is completely free of any further liability. There is something in the suggestion that there should be some more definite limit beyond which certain men should not be called up, but there is an Amendment down in a later part of the Bill which will make definite the point in which the age is 36, but I cannot go into that now.

Mr. Scollan: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly how this would affect a young miner of 26 who worked in the pits from when he was 14 until he was 26 and was then appointed a full-time organiser of his trade union?

Mr. Isaacs: At 26 he could become a full-time member of his union, or a Member of Parliament, if you like, and his liability under the Bill then ceases because he has served the period that is required.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Supposing a man becomes liable to be called up at 25, instead of 26, the number of years, added to his liability would be, according to the Bill, seven years. That would make it something like 32 years before he had completed his service.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and learned Gentleman will see from a later Amendment that it is not intended to make it possible to keep the risk of call-up hanging over a man's head until he is 99. There must be a ceiling and it is provided in another Amendment later.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I entirely agree with the Minister that there should be some ceiling and that this should not be kept hanging indefinitely over a man's head. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a later Amendment to Clause 5 in the names of some of my hon. Friends. I am a little afraid that the Amendment will not cover cases arising under Clause 1, and when we come to


Clause 5 I think it will be seen that it applies only to cases in which service has started and subsequently been interrupted. In the circumstances we Ask that the liability to be called up for service should cease at 36. It does not, I think, cover cases arising under Clause and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would look into it again, and put into Clause r some sort of Amendment such as he is prepared to accept to Clause 5.

Mr. Isaacs: Perhaps, when we come to that Clause we can then see what the feeling of the Committee is, and whether it is possible to meet that position.

Mr. Bowen: In view of what the Minister has said, and having regard to the opportunities for further discussion, subject to not accepting any commitment about the age limit at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Brigadier Low: Under Section II of the principal Act, a number of persons are specifically listed as not liable for service. Can we be certain that these exemptions are incorporated in this Bill. I was a little doubtful, because the wording of the Statute specifically says that the exemptions from liability are only under the earlier Act. Although the words of Subsection (2) of Clause r of the Bill go a little way towards incorporating all the provisions of the earlier Act, I was not certain whether they incorporated those provisions which specifically state that they apply to that Act only.

Mr. Isaacs: Where this Bill makes Amendments in other Acts, there is provision for the inclusion of whatever is in those Acts, up to 1950. A number of deferments and regulations of various kinds will continue, and there will be no change, unless there is a change specifically mentioned in this Bill.

Dr. Haden Guest: With regard to the Amendment which has just been withdrawn, I would like to point out how very careful one should be in drafting Amendments. The effect of this Amendment, had it been carried, would have been to deprive the Services of doctors and dentists, because they will only be called

up when qualified, and that is between 26 and 30. Hon. Members should consider these points, and get things correct so that we do not make "bloomers" of this kind.

Commander Maitland: I do not know if this is the right time and place to raise a comparatively small but important point. What is the position in regard to the Channel Islands? There are 130,000 people in the Channel Islands. and they have cause to recall that our defence arrangements in the past have not always been satisfactory. They are governed by entirely different arrangements from those which we have here and, to some extent, are in the same position as the people of the Isle of Man. I see that there is a special Clause dealing with the Isle of Man, and I would like to ask what consultation there has been with the authorities concerned. Are the islanders to be brought in; and what arrangements are proposed to make provision for their defence, in accordance with the principles of this Bill?

Mr. Isaacs: The Channel Islands are outside the scope of the Bill.

Commander Maitland: Like Ulster?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Whole-tine and part-time service.)

Mr. Henry Strauss: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from "deemed," to the end of line 22, and to insert:
(a) if his last service during that term was in the royal navy or the royal marines, to be entered for service in a royal naval special reserve which the Admiralty shall raise and maintain for the purposes of this Act; or
(b) If such last service was in the regular army, to be enlisted for service in the territorial army or the army reserve, as the Army Council may direct; or
(c) if such last service was in the regular air force, to be enlisted for service in the air force reserve.
I have some hope that this Amendment will be accepted because, if I have rightly understood the intention of the Clause as it stands, my Amendment carries it out, whereas the language in the Clause as now drafted is, I think, rather illiterate and obscure. It will be noticed that the


provision in the Clause as at present drafted, says that:
On the next day after-that on which the term of a person's whole-time service is completed he shall, subject to the provisions of the next following section, be deemed,
and then come these rather strange words:
according as his last service during that term was in the royal navy or the royal marines, the regular army, or the regular air force.
The Clause then proceeds to provide in (a), (b) and (c) for three alternatives which can happen to him. I believe that that is rather strange drafting and syntax in the use of these words,
according as his last service during that term was,
followed by these various alternatives. There is also some doubt as to which of the three things, (a), (b), or (c), shall apply to him in the various events. If members of the Committee will turn to the words on the Order Paper which I have suggested, I think they will find that they are perfectly clear. The words simply say
Shall be deemed

(a) if his last service during that term was in the royal navy or the royal marines, to be entered for service in a royal naval special reserve which the Admiralty shall raise and maintain for the purposes of this Act; or
(b) if such last service was in the regular army, to be enlisted for service in the territorial army or the army reserve, as the Army Council may direct; or
(c) if such last service was in the regular air force, to be enlisted for service in the air force reserve."

The meaning of those words is quite clear and obvious to everyone who reads them. If they convey the meaning which the Government desire, they have this advantage that every-one can turn to this Clause of the Bill and see at once what it means. I do not think that this part of the Bill is one in which the Government desire to conceal their meaning. It is of great advantage that the meaning should be clear at first sight to everyone, and it seems to be appropriate that a University member should put this Amendment forward so that the Clause may be written in good English.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member. The Amendment I know is intended in good faith, to be helpful and seeks to improve the Clause. But my advice from the

draftsmen is that the Amendment is not necessary. Provision is already made. The governing words are in lines 14 to 15, and they are:
According as …
One may not like the words. But if it is the desire of the Committee I will look into this and see if the wording can be improved on the lines suggested in the Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: On that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out "seventh", and to insert "third".
I do not move this Amendment on the ground of my opposition to conscription, but because I feel that the age question comes into this and that even if we accept the age of calling up as 18, a man is 25 years of age before he is completely free of the Services. I submit that in the ordinary development of citizenship, heavy responsibilities must fall on young men about the age of 25. There are two in my mind, the responsibility of marriage and home life. We have to face the fact that if we are establishing an association with the military machine, then to that extent there is a divorcement from ordinary family life. In the early period of life round 25, the biggest responsibility of young men is family responsibility. And I think sincerely in regard to the arguments submitted about discipline making for better citizenship, that, around that age, these persons should be taking a serious part in the civic responsiblities of their community.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour gave some information about students and apprentices, he said the age could go up to 36. I say that is carrying the age beyond the need of the nation. I hope I shall be regarded as sincere in this, apart from my opposition to the Bill in principle. If, as admitted in the White Paper, it is the great desire of the Government and the community to avoid war at all costs, if we are working for peace, and if these young men are already trained and could easily fit into any emergency, there is no need to have them completely tied to the defence organisation until they reach the age of 36. I am not suggesting this is the ideal Amendment. From my reading


of the Bill, with Amendments submitted earlier and taking cognisance of the position of apprentices and medical students and recognising the age when doctors and dentists qualify as stated in Clause 9, there might be reason for looking into this matter further. It may be that the suggested three-year period is too short but I submit, in all honesty, that seven years is far too long a period to have people tied to the defence organisation. Members on the Government Front Bench will admit that in planning the calling-up age at 18, they were thinking in terms of youth, without heavy community and domestic responsibilities. I submit the Amendment on those grounds, and if we could get some kind of appreciation of the point, I think we should be satisfied.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I have listened carefully to the case that has been put forward. I see clearly what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) wants, but I am sure he will appreciate what the result of this Amendment would be on the objective of the Government and of Parliament. Our objective is to build up a reserve. If we accepted the Amendment, we should be able to have a reserve of only 350,000 to 400,000 men. The Amendment would cut the actual reserve period from six to two years. I am afraid that I could not possibly accept the Amendment, much as I should like to meet the human and social aspects to which the hon. Member referred. Moreover, it is very essential that we should give the refresher training during the period of reserve It is not, in actual fact, going to be such a terrible disturbance of domestic life, if we can avoid war, because a man may be called up for only 14 days, or for no more than a maximum of 21 days, in any one year. For those reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Stephen: If this Amendment were accepted, it need not interfere with the building-up of a reserve, because the Government would have an opportunity to extend the period after the General Election. Acceptance of this Amendment would mean that the country would have an opportunity of taking some decision in regard to the introduction of this new feature into the life of the country in peacetime. The Amendment gives the Government an opportunity of continuing to build up a reserve until the General

Election. If the Government are returned to the House of Commons they can then extend the period to seven years. They would be well advised to accept the Amendment, and to let the people have a say in the matter.

Mr. Scollan: As the Bill stands, there will obviously be a chance for the electorate, because, in the normal course of events, there will be a General Election in 1950, and another in 1955, whereas this Bill carries on until 1954. There is also an Amendment down for the purpose of seeing that there shall be a mandate granted at the next Election.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out "or might lawfully have been."
This is not merely a point of drafting, but is a point of substance. I say that with some hesitation, because I know how seldom the Parliamentary draftsmen make any mistakes. But I do not think it is easy to construe the words which the Government have put into the Bill. The Minister will observe that the Clause I am seeking to amend says,
so, however, that the end of a person's part-time service shall be postponed by 'any period by which the term of his whole time service was"—
and then we come to the questionable words,
'or might law-fully have been' extended by virtue of proviso (b) to paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to this Act.
If the Minister will be good enough to look at page 14, to which we are referred by these words, he will find that in line 4 it says:
The term of a person's whole-time service shall, for the purposes of this Act be completed on, or soon as is practicable after, the expiration of a period"—
which is defined. Then we come to the proviso:
Provided that
(b) in reckoning that the end of the said period of eighteen months no account shall he taken …
In other words, every direction as to the meaning of a person's whole-time service is mandatory. There is no alternative. The person's whole-time service is of that duration, and no account is to be taken of those periods. If my Amendment is accepted, I think it is conceivable that the draftsman may want a small further


consequential Amendment. But I think that I am leaving out words which, it they were left in, would render the Clause obscure, and would be legally inaccurate.

Mr. Isaacs: We propose to accept the Amendment. There were other words which were intended to go into the Schedule later, and which we found were unnecessary, and the hon. and learned Gentleman's point was overlooked.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out "sixty," and to insert "seventy-five."
The Minister of Defence, earlier, emphasised the fact that he was anxious to increase the efficiency of the Reserve. As six months have been taken off the continuous period of service, this Amendment proposes that the original 60 days should be increased to 75, spread over no less a period than six years. I am sure everybody will agree that it is necessary to get an efficient Reserve. That being so, is it not necessary so to arrange the period of Reserve service that it will enable a man to serve with his own unit in such a way as to become an efficient member of his Service? Four hours constitutes a day's service, so a man does only 300 hours in six years. If anybody says that he can become effective in less than that time, I shall be surprised. A tremendous advance is being made in weapons, through research and development, and refresher courses will be necessary to ensure that a man becomes acquainted with the weapons he will have to use, in case of an emergency, in the unit in which he will have to serve.
11.0 p.m.
When the Minister of Labour made his statement today he said nothing about pre-Service training of cadets or about whether that would be of any assistance to a man who is called up. Nor was anything said about the facilities that will be available for men who are serving afloat, or in camps, or in the Royal Air Force. I would emphasise that the purpose of this Amendment is to suggest that if there is a cut of six months in the continuous service, it is not asking very much that for a period of 75 days a man should be in training, in his six years of Reserve service. It would also have the effect of helping men who are in industry, because by increasing the number of days

to 75 they would get a continuous period of 21 days. This would mean that a man would be freed from industry for a period apart from the statutory holidays, whereas if the period is confined to 60 days it is impossible for a reservist to do individual drills of three weeks period in camp, afloat or with the Royal Air Force.

Brigadier Low: I should like to get some information from the Minister on the question of training which he failed to give us early in the evening. This Amendment, as my hon. Friend has said, is designed to give the Minister a real chance of getting adequate and efficiently trained men in the Reserve. It is worth noting that the Minister of Labour, whose statement in the House on 31st March on the Second Reading of the Bill has helped more than one speaker this afternoon, referred on that occasion to the possibility of men in certain branches of the Royal Air Force being detained for 12 months. He said that if a man were released earlier, he would be expected to make up that time, by a little extra time given to part-time service in a training programme. If there were three periods available for this man's part-time service he would have a chance of serving with his unit in camp, and it would also give him the opportunity on the periods between camps, to keep himself from getting rusty. I imagine that is why provision is made for hourly periods being reckoned as the equivalent of one day. If the number of days were only 60 it would afford little chance to a man to keep himself from getting rusty and from doing more than one period of 21 days in camp with his unit, whereas if the period were in excess of 60 days and were something like 75, as suggested in this Amendment, there would be a chance of doing two periods with his unit and not only one. At the same time it would give him a chance of keeping himself in fettle. Two periods of 21 days would give 42 days, which leaves only 18 days for splitting up over a period of three or four years. That is obviously not enough.
In considering the effectiveness of part-time training one should compare the periods under this Bill and the periods which the Government considered necessary for the Territorial Army. I have worked out that under the present Territorial Army Regulations a man is ex-


pected to do 132 days or thereabouts in the course of six years, and in fact he is required so to do. There is a very wide gap between 60 days and 132, and I should like some indication from the Minister of his view of the effect of this 60 days. Remember that now, at any rate, the Territorial Army and all the auxiliary forces will be dealing with trained men, so that the argument that the Territorial Army is not dealing with men who have had whole-time service or equipment will not hold water. Clearly this matter, like the larger issue which we discussed earlier, must depend on the answer to two questions which I have already put to the Minister, although unfortunately he was not in the Committee at the time. What is the object of training under this Bill, and what state of efficiency is expected to be attained? Secondly, what state of readiness is planned for the Forces. I do not understand how the Committee can come to a reasoned decision on the right part-time service under this Bill or, for that matter, on the whole-time service, unless we have answers to those questions.

Mr. Paget: I hope that the Minister will have another look at this position I am very doubtful indeed whether 60 days, spread over six years, is long enough to enable people to maintain the full advantage which they have gained during their period of permanent service. I feel that the very well-justified concession of reducing permanent service from 18 months to 12 can be counterbalanced from an efficieincy point of view by some reconsideration of the periods which will be occupied by part-time service, but I believe that the two things must be considered together. If we have looked at one and have corrected it, we ought at the same time to have another look at the other. I do not feel that we ought to expect the Minister to give any decision tonight, but I would ask him to reconsider this matter in consultation with the Service chiefs.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: So far from not expecting the Minister to make any change or decision tonight, one is rather surprised that the Government have not themselves put their names to the Amendment introduced by my hon. Friend, or put down one of their own. If I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright earlier today, he stressed the

fact that the reduction of the period from 18 months to one year was accompanied by an increase in the period of part-time service from 5½ to six years. He said there was some offset to the disadvantage of reducing it in that fact. As there are to be six extra months of part-time service, surely it is reasonable to expect some increase in the total number of days which will be used in training. What exactly that should be, I do not know, but should have thought the Government ought to have some views upon it. If they are going to keep it at 60 days, they ought to justify their position and be prepared to give a reasonable explanation of it. Therefore, I hope they will look sympathetically at the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, and be prepared to accept it.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I hope the Minister will reject the Amendment. I consider 60 days, spread over the period of part-time service, sufficient of a burden for the ordinary citizen and even if it is not sufficient for efficient training, it is absurd to suggest that the addition of 15 days spread over seven years is going to make any difference. The attitude of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is indeed difficult to understand. He said that six months added to the whole-time service would make no difference to a man's efficiency, but he now implies that 15 days added to the part-time service is going to make all the difference. I support what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) about the need for elucidation from the Minister of the conditions of this part-time service. Is it to be applied rigidly or flexibly? Will people be able to carry out visits abroad or go on educational courses? Subject to elucidation on those matters, I hope the Minister will reject the Amendment.

Captain Marsden: I support the Amendment. It seems to me to be a very mild and reasonable Amendment. We are cutting out six months' whole-time service, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not allow political pressure—it is no good the Attorney-General waving his hand—

The Attorney-General(Sir Hartley Shawcross): I was not waving my hand to the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain Marsden: I hope the Minister of Labour will stick to his guns, because he said in his Second Reading speech that while the period of 18 months might not be required for complete training, it was required for service, and therefore, he was saying that 18 months was not adequate for training. We are now getting only 12 months. I assure the Committee that one cannot train anybody to be an efficient sailor or soldier in 12 months. A great many people are not efficient in 12 years. Under the Amendment, we are asking for the equivalent of one week's training a year. It is not asking very much, in that long period, to ask for 15 more days. I have been put in this dilemma, as very many others have been. Eighteen months was not enough, 12 months is not so good, but at least it is better than nothing—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Member must keep to the Amendment.

Captain Marsden: I was only trying to point out why 75 days' training would be better than 60 days over a long period. I hope the Minister will consider this. I am asking very little and I think it should be supported on both sides of the Committee. Having taken off six months' fulltime training, the Government should apply themselves to seeing how they can make up a little extra time during the part-time training which the men will have to undergo.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I do not want to take long over this Amendment. We still have a lot of work to do and we have not a lot of time. I must say that, speaking for myself, I have a great deal of sympathy with the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment. On the other hand, I would like to say to hon. Members opposite that the Government have already made up their mind on this matter. I indicated when I was moving the major Amendment this afternoon that the Government did not propose to increase the period of 60 days. The idea of having a little extra refresher training for each man is very nice, but we have to weigh up what is the actual loss economically in the matter, over the whole period, in relation to the extra advantage one would get. We hope by the end of the five years to have passed into the reserve very nearly a million men,

and if the power under the Act were extended for another year, and ran over the full six years for the reserves, it would mean that you would have nearly 1,200,000 in that reserve. If you added another 15 days it would mean a loss in present economic circumstances, of 40,000 man-years over the six year period of reserve service. Looked at from that point of view, we feel that we cannot accept in the present economic circumstances that extra liability.
On the other hand, there are special cases like that, for example, of the air crews. In the case of the air crews it had never been intended, even under the Bill as it was originally drawn to keep them for more than 12 months with the colours, but to have a special arrangement for them afterwards for longer periods of refresher training. That was done definitely at the instigation of the Air Ministry because it would not have been possible to complete the course in 18 months. The suggestion now is that in cases like that they would not be accepted for air crew training. unless they were ready to volunteer for a longer period in reserve training for that special type of employment. That will be provided for in the regulations. I hope therefore, in the light of the economic charge on our industry which I have indicated, the Committee will see that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Brigadier Low: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman says that an hour's period for what is known as drill in the Territorial Army at present deprives the country of so many man hours—that evening drills really deprive the country of a man's work?

Mr. Alexander: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mixing up two issues. In the Territorial Army it certainly does not, if it is done out of working hours but you are asking for a compulsory call-up of sixty days, and you want to make it 75 days for reserve training under the Bill. That is a different proposition which we cannot accept.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: What we are asking for is that the sixty days shall be increased to 75. The Minister says that a day can be reckoned in a number of hourly periods, and when he says that this addition will lose 40,000 man-years he knows


that he is deceiving the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Well, I will say then that the Committee is obviously not going to be deceived by the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that this is not a fact, because the greater part of the 15 days will not be taken in whole-time training, but will be taken in the evening training in the ordinary way of the Territorials. I am extremely surprised at the stand which the Minister has taken. I had assumed that when the Bill was introduced and the sixty days had been put in, it was based on some thought-out minimum period during which training could be useful. I thought that it had been worked out how these sixty days could best be used to keep the men up to date. If there was nothing behind the choice of sixty days, surely that period ought to be reconsidered when one has altered the period of part-time training

from 5½ years to six. We have had no explanation as to how the sixty days were originally arrived at, nor how that great benefit which the Minister says is going to accrue because people are going to spend six months longer in the Reserve will accrue without spending one single hour longer on training. I should have thought that the Minister would have exhibited that flexibility of mind on which he pride8 himself earlier this afternoon. He thought he would have considered that this is a minor matter compared with the great diminution which has already been passed this evening. In view of the wholly uncompromising nature of his reply, and in the absence of any statement, we shall have to press this Amendment.

Question put, "That 'sixty' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 64.

Mitchison, G. R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tiffany, S


Monslow, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Timmons, J


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Tolley, L.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sargood, R.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Nally, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Sharp, Granville
Walkden, E.


Nicholls, H, R. (Stratford)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Walker, G. H.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


O'Brien, T.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Watson, W. M.


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Weitzman, D.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Simmons, C. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Skeffington, A. M.
West, D. G.


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Parker, J.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Parkin, B. T.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Solley, L. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williamson, T.


Price, M. Philips
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Willis, E.


Pritt, D. N.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Proctor, W. T.
Stubbs, A. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Pryde, D. J.
Swingler, S.
Woodburn, A.


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Sylvester, G. O.
Woods, G. S.


Randall, H. E.
Symonds, A. L.
Yates, V. F.



Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Ranger, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Zilliacus, K.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)



Richards, R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Robens, A.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Mr. Pearson and


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Mr. Collindridge


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thurtle, Ernest





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Beechman, N. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir W


Butcher, H. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davidson, Viscountess
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Digby, S. W.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duthie, W. S
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C.
Nicholson, G.



Glyn, Sir R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Drewe and Lieut.-Colonel


Head, Brig. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Thorp.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out Subsection (4).
The object of the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself is to obtain some clarification on the convertibility of "a day's training" into particular periods of training. This is a fairly far-reaching Clause, if I understand it aright. I will direct the attention of the Committee first to line 20, on the same page, which provides that on leaving whole-time service a man may enlist
in the territorial army or the army reserve, as the Army Council may direct.

In other words, he may be directed into the Territorial Army. Then, if the Committee will look at Clause 3 they will find that a man can volunteer for service in the Territorial Army and similar forces. I want to find out to what extent it is to be permissible for those who do not take on voluntary service to be allowed to convert their part-time training in days into part-time training in hours.
If I understand the case correctly, the Territorial Army as we have known it is to be completely changed, and is to contain both voluntary and compulsory elements. If that is so, it will be necessary


to arrange for the convertibility of part-time service in days into part-time service in hours. It will also completely wreck the Territorial Army. The effect of this Clause is to undermine the Territorial Army of the future. If one considers the continental systems one finds that a man, having finished his training, is liable to be called up for continuous periods of service, which vary from 21 days in two years, to 21 days in one year. Is this also the intention of the Government? Is this the way it is to be worked? Are these men to be called up for continuous service only, or is there to be convertibility? I suggest that this Clause is out of place. The powers that are required can be found in Clause 3 (2), so far as the voluntary forces are concerned. There may be odd exceptions. For example, it might be convenient for a scientist to do hourly periods of service, instead of long periods of continuous service. I should like to have an explanation of this from the right hon. Gentleman.
There is a further point. Under Clause 6, a man may have an order served on him when he is to carry out his service. Does this apply to hourly service as well as to continuous service, because if so, if will be pernicious? If a man has time voluntarily to join the Territorial Army, or some voluntary force, that is one thing, but if he has not the time to join, although he might like to do so, it will be a great hardship if he is to be directed to do a period of service at a particular time. Take the case of a commercial traveller. How can he be directed to do hourly periods of service at definite times, even with 30 days' notice? I move this Amendment because it is not clear to me whether or not sufficient powers are already contained in the Bill to cover voluntary service, and to ascertain whether it is intended that this should apply to those who do not undertake voluntary service, and whether there is to be convertibility.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Subsection, as it stands, makes nonsense of the decision arrived at in the Division on the last Amendment. Under this Subsection it is provided that the Service Departments shall make regulations defining what is a day. The Committee will observe that it does not provide any limit to what that definition may be. By a strict reading of the Subsection it

will be possible for a Department, which sympathised with the last Amendment, to define a day as being a period of 30 hours, and thereby getting precisely the result which a large majority of Members of the Committee thought fit to dispute a few moments ago. The whole Subsection is so wide that it calls for a good deal of clarification. Members opposite, from the attitude they have adopted on previous Amendments, should be equally vigilant with Members on this side in seeing what this means. I invite their attention to the fact that the whole of this Subsection lays an obligation on the Service Departments to make these regulations, but it is only permissive in its effect as to how they shall make these regulations. It gives them power to insert a provision as to the aggregation of the four hourly periods.
I do not possess those suspicions of the Service Departments which seem so easily to come to the minds of Members opposite, but as a Member of the House of Commons I dislike legislation of this kind, which hands over large quantities of legislative authority to outside bodies. Before we part with this Subsection we are entitled to two things, first, an explanation as to precisely what the Government understand the limitations of this broadly drafted Subsection to be; second, some binding undertaking as to how they will use it. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has done a service in bringing this matter forward tonight.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for suggesting that the Service Departments have sufficient ingenuity to be able to convert a day of 24 hours into one of 30 hours, but I should have thought that that was beyond their powers. I can tell the hon. Member that such is not the intention of the Service Departments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman disputes that it would be within the capacity of the Service Departments to define a day as being one of 30 hours. Does he appreciate that under the Subsection there is power given to them to define a day as being a period of four hours?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, but in an entirely different connection.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Attorney-General, seated on the Front Bench, to interject more than usually audible comments without getting on to his feet, and making them properly?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot say whether the comments were audible, as I did not hear them.

Mr. Bellenger: I will do my best to explain the exact purpose of this Subsection. If the Amendment were carried it would not be possible for the Service Departments, particularly the War Office, to be able to permit a man doing part-time service, to convert that statutory obligation into doing 60 days, spread over six years, and not more than 21 days in any one year, as full-time service, into week-end or evening drills, or camps.
11.45 p.m.
The principal Department which will enable the men to utilise this option will be the Department over which I preside, and it will be mainly used by those reservists who are engaged in the anti-aircraft defence of this country. It will be more convenient both for the Army and for the men themselves to do their evening drills with their own guns and other equipment, which will be in centres in proximity to their own homes rather than perhaps spending regularly every year a full period of camp training for which it will be necessary, of course, to serve a call-up notice. The arrangements for those weekend camps and evening drills will be friendly affairs between the commanding officers and the men. It will not be necessary to serve a call-up notice because all matters will be arranged amicably between the commander and the men. I think the Committee will agree that this is a very useful provision, at any rate as far as the Army is concerned. I do not think that either of the other two Service Departments will use it to the same extent as the Army.
Perhaps I might now say something about the computation of days in hours, or maybe it is the other way round. A four-hourly period will be acknowledged to be one full day under this Clause, and a weekend camp will consist of not less than eight hourly periods. Therefore, if a man arranges with his commanding officer to do four hourly drills, there will be marked off a day out of his 60-day period.

A weekend camp will consist of eight hourly periods.

Mr. Byers: This is a very important point. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that if a man arrives for his training, shall we say, at 2 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon and leaves on a Sunday evening, he is still only able to count eight hours' training period?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, that is the second part of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). Included under this Subsection is power for a Service Department to define what a day's service would consist of, and obviously, if a man arrives to do his duty late in the evening, it would not be fair to consider that a day's duty. This power will be used quite reasonably, but we shall have to see by experience what is really a fair day's duty in accordance with what the man is called up to do. The Service Departments will use this power of definition quite reasonably and it will probably have to be something over 12 hours to consist of a full day. That is the whole purpose of this Subsection and I think that it is a reasonable provision that we are inserting in the Bill. I do, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Dumfries to accept this as a satisfactory explanation and to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him whether it would not be a kindness to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to point out to the depleted and diminished ranks on the benches opposite that under Clause 19 (3), the regulations will have to be laid before Parliament in any event?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With regard to that intelligent observation, I am quite certain that my hon. Friend must not only have read the Bill, but could possibly explain it to the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am a little disappointed by the Secretary of State's remarks with regard to this Subsection. I should like to ask him a few questions concerning it, and I hope he may be able to give me answers to them. First of all, he dealt with weekend camps and evening drills. Can he say whether it is the intention that those who are directed into the Territorial Army Reserve shall be called up for a


weekly camp or fortnightly camp? Secondly, in view of the tact that the Minister of Defence can tell us with precision how many man-years will be wasted if the number of days is increased from 60 to 75, can he tell the Committee how many man-years would be wasted by leaving this in its present form? Surely he is capable of making that calculation if there is any reliance at all to be placed on the calculation made by the Minister of Defence, because the 75 days would again be subject to the interpretation contained in this Subsection. I hope he will be able to give us some information upon that point. Then the right hon. Gentleman made a statement to the effect that the call-up for these weekend camps and for these hourly periods would be an amicable, friendly arrangement. It may be that that will be so, and I hope that it will in the majority of cases, but can he say whether, in the absence of the service of a training notice under Clause 6, he has any power to compel the attendance of any man on any day during his part-time period? Surely, in the case of someone in the Territorial Army Reserve who is a volunteer there is a penalty for not appearing on a particular day for a particular drill? Is the national service man to be in a more favourable position in that respect with regard to his drills and his periods than the man who volunteers for service in the Territorial Army? Before we pass from this Subsection, which gives very wide powers to the Service chiefs, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us some more information on those points and so, perhaps, enable us to carry on more speedily with other parts of the Bill to which we shall be coming shortly.

Mr. Bellenger: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we certainly do intend to call up men for annual camp training periods, but the arrangements would, of course, be different for the three Services. In particular, if the Navy wished to send their reservists to sea they would utilise the powers under this Bill to call men up periodically—not necessarily every year—for the full period provided under the Bill. In the Army, however, and the R.A.F., too, I imagine, it will be quite different in certain respects. We shall not necessarily want the men in the Army for annual camps, although we shall need those

at certain periods, particularly when large-scale formation training is to be carried out. In the main, however, we want this to be flexible so that we can fit in as far as possible with industry and our own particular requirements—especially with regard to anti-aircraft defences—and so that we can get men who will, on the whole, be willing in many cases to do weekend and evening training rather than be called up for a full 15 or 21 days in the year. But, as I have said, it must be flexible and it must be left to the Service authorities to make these regulations. They are certainly not to be used in any onerous way. They will be used to suit the convenience of the reservists themselves in the main.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Could the Minister answer the question that I put to him about whether volunteers and people serving compulsorily will be mixed in the same units?

Mr. Bellenger: Certainly, they will be mixed in the same units. We are now engaged in recruiting the volunteers, the N.C.O's. and key men, to be there for the time when the reservists come along. We hope that many of these men who have this compulsory period of reserve service to do will volunteer, along with those who have volunteered for the Territorial Army, to do extra drills. I think many of them will wish to do so.

Mr. Rhys Davies: There is one point I would like to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for War. Nearly all the speeches that have been delivered on this issue have assumed that Saturday afternoon is a time of freedom from work. The right hon. Gentleman knows my view on this issue in general, but I want to call his attention to the fact that the largest industry in this country covers the shop workers, and that they are not always free on a Saturday afternoon.

Brigadier Low: I want to raise one point in connection with the remarks of the Secretary of State for War about arrangements between an amicable commanding officer and an amicable national service man. Is it the intention of the Service authorities that an amicable national service man, at the beginning of his year, shall be able to do so much training in these training periods that he then exempts himself in each one of his


six years from doing 21 days in camp? Is that the intention? Or will there be a special prohibition of that in the regulations?
There is one other point I want to make. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he hoped that a large number of national service men would join the auxiliary Services as volunteers, so that they would be able to do more drills and put in more hours service, and, therefore, more days' service. That seems to run counter to what his right hon. Friend said to us a little time ago, when he said that my Amendment was against the country's present economic position, because it lost so many man-hours. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman takes my side in this interesting discussion.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It appears to me that not only have we been weighting against the military requirements in the rather more fundamental issues that have been raised, but that we are tending, for the second time, to weight against the military requirements in favour of the industrial requirements. I think we have to keep a fair balance. If we are to consider the thing only from the industrial and economic side, obviously the whole thing may be nonsense. I think we have been going just a little too far in what has been said. I do not know what has been meant, but what has been said would lead one to believe that the primary interest is what is being done in the factories, and so on, and that we cannot consider the military side, which does not matter very much. I do not think what was said was meant in that way, but I think we ought to be clear on the matter.

12 m.

Mr. Byers: I ask the Secretary of State for War to look at this matter again more closely with a view to bringing forward something with a closer definition on the Report stage, because I understood him to say that four hours of evening drills would count as one day's training. If 36 hours, perhaps in a weekend camp, count any number of days which the Service authorities themselves are to define, it might conceivably be reckoned as one day or two days. We suggest that from the point of view of justice that will cause a great deal of difficulty, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State

for War would dispel that difficulty, which appears to me to be a very real one. He ought to look at this matter again. It is all very well saying these things will work out all right, but we have heard that sort of argument time and time again when a Bill is brought before this House. When it becomes an Act of Parliament no one bothers to look up the HANSARD reports and it is not the vast majority of people who will be caught by this but the one man in a thousand.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I would like the Committee to consider more exactly what this means because I do not think it has been sufficiently explained so far. What would be the position if we left out this Subsection? The Amendment now before the Committee is to leave out the Subsection. In this Subsection only 24 hours is a day. If we leave out even one second, it cannot be counted as a day. I take it no one wants that. I am against the Bill. I would take it that nobody would want a service of this kind to be gauged merely by the clock.

Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Subsection be kept in and the Bill left out?

Mr. Silverman: I should like to see this Bill left out, certainly, and then it would not much matter about the Subsection being left in, but I am also in favour of legislation passed by this House being understandable and reasonable. Although we are against the Bill, it had much better go through in a reasonable and comprehensible form.

Mr. Bellenger: I hope the Committee will now be ready to proceed further. I have done my best to give an explanation of a Subsection which I think will benefit the majority of men who would prefer, and who are permitted, to commute weekend and evening drills into a day's service. I should say that it would be most convenient both for the employers and the men, when they are called up for 30 days' service, to do their annual training in camp, and if this Subsection enables the Army, at any rate—because we shall be the principal users of it—to get adequate training and the men to be least inconvenienced, then I think the House should give us this Subsection without any further discussion.

Commander Noble: I am sure that all sides of the Committee will agree that this is a most interesting Amendment. We have heard a great deal about the Army side of it. I want to ask for a little information for the naval point of view. We all know that there are such things as nautical miles. In this connection there may be nautical hours. Perhaps one of the Admiralty representatives in the Government could give Members some information?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The primary object in moving this Amendment is that convertibility is being allowed for non-volunteer reserves. On the other hand, the Committee is not satisfied that the explanation which has been given of the position of volunteers and non-volunteers. The system cannot possibly work where volunteers have to do one period of service and non-volunteers have to do another.

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member has forgotten that those who volunteer will have no obligation under this Bill. They will be free men, and I think that he is under a misapprehension.

Mr. N. Macpherson: They have two separate kinds of obligation's, and they cannot possibly work in the same unit.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Before this Amendment is disposed of, it should be said that the hon. Member who moved it has done a useful service, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has done a disservice. We want a better explanation of what constitutes a day's service. I happen to have been in the Territorial Army before the war and there was always an argument about this point. There was always doubt as to what actually constituted a day's service, and perhaps I had better not say much about what we understood to constitute such a day. We want to know definitely what will go to make up this necessary time.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out Subsection (5).
I hope that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will understand that this is an Amendment moved merely to get an understanding of this provision, which is a good example of legislation by special reference to other Statutes without showing what those Statutes are. I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm what is the position resulting from this Subsection. Under Subsection (2) the national service man may go to the Naval Reserve, or the Territorial Army, or the Army Reserve, or the Air Force Reserve as the Service authorities may choose, and it is important to remember that the national service man, however he may be able to arrange with his commanding officer for a weekend camp, will not be able to say to which reserve he will go. Under Subsection (5), the man having been directed to a particular reserve, the obligation falling on him now will differ according to the reserve. If he is directed to the Army Reserve he may be called out for active or permanent service or to the aid of the civil power. If he is drafted into the Auxiliary Air Force his only liability will be to be called out in defence of the British Isles. I would like to ask for a statement on what are the particular obligations which will fall upon the individual National Serviceman; what will be his liability to be called out to service, depending on which reserve he is in.

The Attorney-General: I would like, in the first place, to ask hon. Members opposite, when is a day not a day? That might be a more inspiring subject than the one with which we are dealing. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has rightly apprehended the purpose and intention of this Clause. Under the existing law, which is, in general, unaffected by the provisions of this Bill, there are different statutory provisions in regard to the calling up of the various reserves and auxiliary services. One of the minor distinctions in this connection occurs in the Royal Navy, where the reserve may be called to active service on any occasion when His Majesty thinks fit, the occasion being the subject of prior notification of Parliament.
In the Army, the purposes for which the reserves may be called up are slightly more restricted. His Majesty may do it


by Proclamation in the case of imminent national danger or great emergency, and the Secretary of State can do it where it is necessary to support the civil power in the preservation of public peace. In the Air Force Reserve, again, there is a liability to be called out to serve, to defend the British Isles, in advance of any proclamation which may effect the calling out of other reserves. If Subsection (5) were left out, there would be doubt as to the provisions under which men compulsorily enlisted in one or other of the reserve services can be called out to serve. It is essential that members of the same force, whether they be volunteers, or compulsorily enlisted men—as will be those affected by this Bill—shall be subject to the same machinery and obligations in regard to calling up. That is the effect of this Subsection; it brings the compulsorily enlisted man within the scope of the machinery relating to the particular service to which he has been called.

Commander Maitland: Can the learned Attorney-General say whether the term "British Isles" includes the Channel Islands?

The Attorney-General: I understand so.

Commander Maitland: Does it?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Amendment negatived.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Ayles: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to add:
Provided no persons subject to the National Service Act shall be required to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment.
I approach this Amendment as a trade unionist of nearly 50 years' standing. It is 50 years ago this week since I first took part in an industrial dispute—the engineers' eight-hours lockout. The Committee will, therefore, easily understand the feelings I have when I notice in the Clause that powers are given to call out reservists in order that they may come to the aid of the civil power and that they are able to interfere in industrial disputes. I am moving this Amendment because I want to prevent that from being done. The right to withdraw their labour is one of the rights for which trades unions have fought for over a century and a half.

It is, of course, always attended by a certain amount of discomfort and often privation for the workmen, and by some inconvenience to the public and the community, and also, probably, the Government. In such a case there is a great temptation for the Government to take the line of least resistance, and if they find that by calling up the reservists they can break a strike, the temptation is very great indeed. I am not prepared to say the present Government would be prepared to do such a thing. do not know. If I had been told two years ago at the General Election that within two years a Labour Government would be introducing a Bill to enact peacetime conscription, I would have told the man who said it to go to Colney Hatch. No one would have imagined for one moment that such a thing was possible, which just goes to show that even in a case like this you never can tell.' The excuse, of course, is that conditions have changed. That is the excuse for doing something that you have said in the past you would never do. Conditions may also change in regard to industrial disputes and trade union rights. That is why I want to have this statutory safeguard placed in the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: Does the hon. Member intend this Amendment to apply to unofficial strikes as well?

Mr. Ayles: It will apply to all industrial disputes. It will prevent the Government from taking action by calling up the reservists to take part in industrial disputes in order to break them, unofficial as well as official strikes. There are other means of dealing with such a situation of a civil character without calling up the reservists. Therefore, if the Government are prepared to say that circumstances changed and caused them to introduce this Bill, so circumstances can again change with regard to industrial disputes and trade union rights.
I am prepared to affirm that if this Bill had been on the Statute Book as it stands in 1926, it would probably have been used in the General Strike. We have to remember that we shall have, according to the information given to us tonight, something like a million men in reserve who will be working at their ordinary jobs. They will be engineers, carpenters, textile workers, transport men and so on. Suppose the transport men come out on strike, then, as the Bill


stands, all reservists working in the industry can be called up in order to break the very strike they have started. This is not a figment of the imagination; it has been done in the past. It was done in the case of the posts and telegraphists in France in 1939; in the case of the transport industry in France in 1910, and in the transport industry in Spain in 1912. I remember, because I was there, the troops being called into Tonypandy in 1910, provoking the very disturbance they were called in to try and stop.
I hope there is not the possibility after the next General Election of a change of Government, but if there is, then it will have been a Labour Government that has given this power to the Tories, and have handed it to them on a cupro-nickel salver to do with what they like. They will be able to use the conscripts for those purposes for which today we are told they will never be used, because they cannot bind their successors, and this Bill is being prolonged after 1950. The rights of the workers to withdraw their labour has been established by Statute and accepted by all parties. The right is no longer in dispute in law or in theory. If there is any trouble, the maintenance of law and order can be left to the civil authorities, and there is, therefore, no need to have this power incorporated in this Bill. A Government can act in panic. I am convinced that the Government in 1926 would have acted in panic if this Bill had been on the Statute book. I want to make it impossible by having a safeguard inserted. Much damage has already been done. We may be faced with the alternative of being black-legged or going into the Army. Whatever favourable guarantees are given. The power to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done. I am satisfied that the great trade unions will realise the significance of the powers under this Bill, and will not be satisfied with anything less than the Amendment I have proposed.

Mr. Solley: May I ask the hon. Member, arising out of the question put to him by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) in relation to official strikes, whether he does not agree that his Amendment is merely concerned with reserves, and that it is well within the province of a Government, if they

thought fit, to bring out the non-reservists to deal with them?

Mr. Ayles: I am dealing with this Bill, and not with any other Bill. It is this Bill which for the first time establishes the right of the Government to draw reservists out to break their own strike.

Mr. Mikardo: The Amendment raises a number of issues of extreme complexity, and the arguments are not all on one side. The first thing we have to do is to differentiate very carefully on the one hand between the general question of the use of the Armed Forces in trade disputes, and, on the other hand, to differentiate between voluntary long-term soldiers and conscripts called up under this Bill. A great deal can be said on both sides on the first point, but I do not think it is as germane as the second. There is a st10ng feeling, and for excellent reasons, that the military power should not be used to upset the balance as between employer and employee, which works throughout the whole concatenation of forces until, in the final issue, it reaches the last sanction—the strike called a lockout. That balance has been delicately worked out over a number of years, and we are now in a situation in which it works fairly well. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) was very pertinent. If we could find a form of words to distinguish statutorily between what we have now come to call official and unofficial strikes, or a form of words which did not lay themselves open to abuse by a Minister as to what action in the national interest, should be taken. I think we should get over a considerable difficulty in this matter. But, as it is, I think that either of those definitions would be extremely difficult to arrive at at the moment. We are, therefore, faced with the necessity of considering the Amendment as it stands. It says:
Provided that no persons subject to the National Service Act shall be required …
That means persons who are serving 12 months' full-time, as well as those who are serving 5½ or 6 years on the reserve. The general question of intervention by the military is one which, naturally, arouses strong feelings, but it is not the most important question that we have to consider. The position of the man who enters the Army voluntarily for several years, who undertakes, freely, to do all that may be required of him during his service, and


who—and this is the important point—severs his connection with industry deliberately, is very different from that of the man who is called up from, say, the electrical engineering industry, who knows that he will be away for only a year, and who keeps in contact with his branch secretary and former workmates. The point made by the mover of the Amendment is extremely valid. If we had a trade dispute in a highly technical branch of industry, and it was felt necessary to use the military to perform civil duties, one would naturally go to the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers to find the most competent men in that particular line of work. If competent national service men were found, you might be asking the people who were working in the factory concerned, a few weeks before, who perhaps took part in the early stages of the dispute, to come in and break the strike which was the logical culmination of a dispute which they themselves started.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a very interesting point, but is the hon. Gentleman not avoiding the issue? There is the difficulty of defining the type of dispute as to whether it affects the life of the community and it is not a question of the type of man involved in it.

Mr. Mikardo: I have made some reference to that point and I am coming to it again if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. The point I was endeavouring to make is that it is a bit rough on the man concerned to order him to take part in tipping the balance, in favour of employers in a dispute which he may have been a party to beginning before he was called up. Let us not overlook the danger we might be making by precipitating a mutiny in the case of such a man. That is a thing which I do not think any Member of this Committee would want to see encouraged and, therefore, one needs to be very careful with regard to a matter of this kind. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) showed he has in mind, it can be argued that there arc some occasions when it is necessary to use troops to wind up Tower Bridge or in Smithfield Market. In the great majority of such cases—certainly all those within my personal recollection—where it has been necessary to use military, the number of men has been very small indeed. I think a couple of hundred were sent into

Smithfield Market, and I believe that some 40 sailors have been coping manfully in the best traditions of the Royal Navy with Tower Bridge.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: But the principle is the same whether the number is large or small.

Mr. Mikardo: So long as the numbers involved are small there can be no difficulty in finding these numbers from among the Regular soldiers. I understand that it will probably create some difficulty if the unit were lined up and conscripts told to fall out as only volunteers could be engaged on work in connection with a strike. I suggest that if the numbers are small it is not really an overwhelming difficulty; in any event, I do not think it would be too easy for anybody to use the military in any circumstances in a matter of this kind. If it is demonstratively difficult to do, people will think twice before using the military to intervene in a trade dispute.
It may be argued that there may be occasions on which very large numbers of men would be enrolled, that the numbers necessary could not be obtained solely from volunteers, and that it would cause a major upheaval if the volunteers were separated. If there were a stoppage of work as large as that, it would have got beyond the stage where the military should be called out. Whatever Members of the Committee think about the general question of the use of military in a trade dispute—and we can be free to differ about that—even when some Members take the view that it might be justifiable in some circumstances to use the military, I believe that we should confine that use to volunteers and not attempt to use the national service man.

Colonel Wigg: I hope the Attorney-General, if he is going to accept this Amendment, will not agree to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) suggests and have this differentiation between the Regular soldiers and the national service men. It would be a most invidious position if inside a unit a number of men were regarded as black legs by the other men. Apart from that, I think my hon. Friend's suggestion would be quite impossible, and administratively it would be fantastic, because in many units in this country a good proportion of the men would be national service men. Indeed, if there were an attempt to do any sorting out it


would mean that the forces in this country would just become completely chaotic, because if only volunteers were to be called out for this type of work it would mean that all volunteers, irrespective of rank, would be called upon to do this duty.
Furthermore, the idea of encouraging volunteer soldiers to engage in black-leg activities—for that is what they are—would not be easy to carry out. I remember that at the end of 1919 there was a railway strike in this country and I was at the Royal Tanks Depot in Wareham. Suddenly I was posted with other members of my unit to Aldershot and there we spent several happy days playing pontoon as long as our money lasted. Then we were sent back to our billets at Wareham and the Prime Minister, who was Mr. Lloyd George, thanked us for our help as volunteers in coping with the railway strike. Volunteering in the Army often takes that form. There is another point. The second line of this Amendment says:
… required to take duty in aid of the civil power …
As I understand it, any citizen of this country can be called upon in a certain state of affairs to take duty under the civil power, and what the Committee is being asked to do is to relieve the national service man of an obligation which is placed on every other citizen in the community whether he is in the Army or not.

Mr Turner-Samuels: So long as he or she is an individual and not a collective body.

Colonel Wigg: As an individual, yes, but we propose to relieve the national service man of that duty, and that seems to me to present some difficulty. However, that can be dealt with by the Attorney-General when he replies. The main thing I want to do is to plead with him or the Secretary of State for War not to make the Regular soldier a pariah amongst his fellows. Most of them will go back to civil life decent members of their trade unions, and whether a man is serving for five years or one year he should not be made a sort of industrial outcast and used to break down the efforts of his fellow tradesmen. That is riot what the hon. Member for Reading meant, out that is certainly what will happen if he is successful in getting this fantastic idea through.

Mr. Sargood: The terms of this Amendment will have a very familiar ring in the ears of the Government. Whether it will be a welcome sound or not, remains to be seen. Clause 2 (5), which we seek to amend, clearly states that any person called up for the reserves will be liable, among other things, to be called to aid the civil forces. Those words are capable of a very wide interpretation. We seek to ensure that they will not be interpreted to mean that those persons will be used in industrial disputes. The Government do not need me to tell them the strength of feeling that will be roused in the minds of trade unionists if persons taking part in an industrial dispute are to be called up for service with the reserves and, in all probability, used to break the very dispute in which they are taking part, or to break a dispute in which some other members of their union or of another union are taking part. That might easily happen under the Bill.
I do not suggest the Government would lightly embark on such a course. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said yesterday that he and his friends were anxious to get the principles of the Bill established. We are anxious to reassure the trade unionists that one of the principles of the Bill will not be strike breaking. We are legislating for a peacetime service. Arguments about the use of the reserves in industrial disputes which might have validity in conditions of war cannot have the same compelling force in peace-time legislation. I am certain that if these words remain in the Bill, they will simply have the effect of aggravating disputes in those cases where the reserves are used for strike breaking.
It may be urged that we are passing through a time of economic difficulties, and that this gives the situation the same urgency as in war time, and that that is an argument in favour of retaining the power to use the reserves in industrial disputes. Those who use that argument must remember that the Bill will not be operative until 1st January, 1949, and that by that time the Government will have gone a very long way to cure those economic difficulties. I have spent a good many years as a trade union officer working in close touch with the men and women in the factories and workshops, and I know that this Bill will be very much less repugnant if the Amendment is


accepted, and that its acceptance would reassure the trade unions that their fears are unfounded.

12.45 a.m.

Brigadier Peto:: If there is a national emergency, if the food of the nation is at stake, or if there is a general strike, surely it must be right for the Government to have the power to use what forces they like in order to see that the nation does not suffer. I feel that the likelihood of the reserve being called out is a remote one. In my recollection it has never happened before. We have had the Territorial Army on a similar basis, but it has never been called out. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were not conscripts."] I feel it is a most unlikely contingency, but, at the same time, it is one which the Government have to view from a wide angle and retain this power in case it is necessary to use it. I dislike as much as any Member, the feeling that you are going to use one man against another in this country on an industrial question. But at the same time, I feel most strongly that should there be an emergency such as I have tried to depict, when one's country's food is at stake and people are likely to die unless action is taken, it is essential that the powers should be there to see that our ships are unloaded, our train services are running, our food is delivered and the people are not starved. Unless that power is taken under this Bill I do not think it would be at all sufficient. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg), that it would be most invidious and repugnant to me, at any rate, as an ex-officer to differentiate between a conscript in a unit and the volunteer in the same unit. It could not work in practice and it is not a sensible suggestion, if I may say so with respect

Wing-Commander Millington: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman from his experience in the Army think that, should there be a dispute in the docks or in transport, which would jeopardise the delivery of food to the families of this country, there would be any lack of volunteers in the Services to carry out the very necessary task of shifting that food to prevent the starvation he speaks of?

Brigadier Peto: I think it would be most obnoxious to leave it to volunteers to have to do so. [HON. MEMBERS:

"Why?"] Because a unit, or a whole regiment or battalion would go in circumstances like that. You cannot have men volunteering to go and break strikes.

Wing-Commander Millington: Is it not a fact that in all units during the war men had special tasks to perform on the basis that men were asked to volunteer? Is there any reason why that basis, which was successful in war, should not be carried forward and employed in peace?

Brigadier Peto: I think it would be a most unwise performance against the civil population. It may be quite all right to call for volunteers for action against the enemy, but I think it would be most unwise to call for action against civilians.

Mr. Ayles: Is the hon. Gentleman under the impression that, owing to the fact that it was an industrial dispute, he would get no volunteers?

Brigadier Peto: No, that is not what my impression was. I am sure if it were an industrial dispute likely to jeopardise the soldiers' own families from getting food, there would be plenty of volunteers, but as an ex-Army officer I personally am against allowing individuals in a unit to volunteer to go off into the blue and try to break strikes. That would immediately undermine discipline in a unit.

Mr. Solley: I support this Amendment which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles). I venture to suggest that an artificial dichotomy has been made between the volunteer and the conscript If those who seek to make this division would study the Amendment carefully, they would see that all it seeks to do is to make it impossible for the Government to compel any person who is subject to the National Service Acts to take part in strike breaking activities. But, it is not so simple as it might appear. This Amendment does not prevent the Government from saying either to volunteers or to persons subject to the National Service Acts, "Will you volunteer for certain duties in respect of national industrial disputes?" It would then be the duty of the conscript or volunteer to do the duty for which the Government call, and the issue comes to this, whether or not—and it certainly would not happen in the case of this Government—in certain circumstances an occasion might arise where the Government were desirous of


breaking an industrial dispute for purely political reasons, the Government would call up the reservists deliberately to break a strike. This Amendment makes such an action impossible while allowing the Government to ask for volunteers to prevent a strike from having deleterious consequences for the general public. If it is a dispute in which it would be proper to ask for volunteers to save the public from the serious consequences of such a strike, it would be reasonable for soldiers to undertake such a duty. But, if one has a strike of another character, it would be right for soldiers to refuse to undertake such a duty.
May I say a word as to whether or not the Army has any right in law to demand of a soldier that he should participate in any strike breaking? Here we have something which has never been settled in this country. The Army authorities, time and time again, have demanded of soldiers that they should participate in strike breaking, but the issue has never been tested in a court of law, and in my submission it is not a reasonable command to put to a soldier, be he volunteer or otherwise, that he should participate in the breaking of strikes. This Amendment clarifies the position, and, for this reason, I shall certainly support it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I must say that I am surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley). I thought that the legalistic opinions on these matters were more likely to be given from the Front Bench rather than from the benches behind it. But, if this Amendment is to be interpreted from the legalistic point of view from the back benches there may be a difference of opinion. It will be interesting to hear what the Attorney-General will say.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the hon. Member laying it down that it is an undesirable thing for an hon. Member on the back benches to talk of conscription from a legal point of view? I do not think that that is so, and if that be the case, how is it undesirable for a lawyer on the back benches to give the Committee the benefit of his experience and knowledge?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot understand the point which the hon. Member raises. Obviously the Committee is only too ready to have the advice of anyone who knows anything about the subject.

But when one comes to points of law, which, as a layman, I always understood were governed by very high principle indeed—[Interruption]—of course, I may be wrong, but I had always thought that this sort of thing might be better interpreted from the Front Government Bench by a Law Officer of the Crown. I do not mean that as an insult to the hon. Member who has just sat down, but a very delicate matter is dealt with in this Amendment. I am not going to deal with the legalistic aspect at all. Certainly not; I am a layman. I have never touched the law.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I apologise, Major Milner. I am afraid I was tempted a little. I submit that the second part of this Amendment has been entirely omitted from the discussion so far. It is the second part which provides, to my mind, the greatest danger to the fair consideration of what should be the proper use of all members of His Majesty's Forces, or the unfair use of such members. It is in the second and third lines of the Amendment that, I think, real confusion of thought may reasonably arise. The words are:
To perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment.
It is quite easy to see that it is impossible to impose upon those who have been enforced by Act of Parliament into the service of His Majesty the duty of performing certain deeds which will be outside their military duties. Of course, that is quite easy. It is equally proper to say that all those who either under compulsion or by voluntary service, are enforced into or accept the service of His Majesty should see that His Majesty's subjects are protected against the evil deeds of those who are not His Majesty's friends. I would ask the Committee to consider this: if you are going to legislate, as the Amendment suggests you should, to differentiate between those who volunteer and those who are compelled by Act of Parliament to enter His Majesty's Forces, you are entering at once into a field of distinction which it is quite impossible for this Committee to consider.
We have only to think of some recent examples. Let us think of a very easy


case, such as the traffic on the River Thames. How do we know whether those who are serving in the engine room of the Tower Bridge to raise and lower that Bridge to see that traffic passes beneath it, are or are not conscripted men? How can we define these matters? It may be that you can say on a broad issue that the supply and transport of the food of the people is endangered by the action of, it may be, one trade union leader and those who follow him. Where does the definition begin and end? It might be that someone who works a bridge across some canal in North-West or South-East England will say, "I am going to close the bridge and allow no traffic to cross it." Under this definition, nobody who comes under the terms of the Amendment is allowed to assist in opening or closing any bridge or canal or anything else.
1.0 a.m.
What is a trade dispute—one man, half-a-dozen men, twenty men? [Laughter.] Members may laugh, but these are very difficult and delicate points. I had the honour of being in this House just before the last war when matters just as delicate were being considered but under a different cloud. I ask the Committee to consider this matter in the present conditions. We cannot consider them only as trades disputes or non-trades disputes, lockouts or non-lockouts. We have to take them on the question whether the citizens of this country are going or are not going to be supplied with the necessities of life. It is really the duty of this House. If the Amendment were carried, it would, so far as I can see, be quite impossible, even under the gravest emergency, for anybody to be ordered to assist in supplying the necessities of life to the people. Is that what the mover of the Amendment really means? I cannot believe it.

Mr. Wyatt: It is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have the Order Paper in front of me. If the supporters really support the argument that under no consideration should any men called up under the Bill be ordered to assist in maintaining the necessities of life of the people they should stand up and say what they mean.

Mr. Mikardo: They have said so.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: They only pretended to say so. They have not come out into the open.

Mr. Mikardo: Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to say that Members who spoke previously have deliberately misled the Committee by pretending to say something they did not propose?

The Chairman: I did not gather the hon. Member to say that.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I ask the supporters to state their case in all seriousness and state what it means to the lives of the people. Are they prepared to say that in no circumstances any technicians or anybody else under the Bill can assist in maintaintaining the life of the people? That is the issue. If they go as far as that, the Amendment can only mean that they do not care two hoots about how the people of this country live.

Mr. S. Silverman: The last speech has really shown that it is labour lost to endeavour to make hon. Members opposite understand what this Amendment is about. I do not propose, therefore, to waste any time on the speech to which we have just listened. I know that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench understand very well what are the issues involved. I know that their sympathies are with the mover of the Amendment, and that insofar as they are able to do so, they are willing either to accept it or to explain their reasons for rejecting any part of it. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) that perhaps by now he appreciates the vengeance of the House of Commons, at one o'clock in the morning, when trying to walk delicately, like Agag, they only introduce a large number of complications which really are not germane to the discussion. We are not discussing the troops as strike breakers—

Mr. Mikardo: That is precisely what I said.

Commander Noble: On a point of Order. May we know what this is all about?

Mr. S. Silverman: We are dealing with a perfectly simple point, namely, whether men conscripted under this Bill shall be used for purposes for which the Government do not claim the Bill is necessary. One of the important considerations in all


these Debates is that this Bill is the only thing which the Government have done since they came into office, in which it can be claimed that they are making a fundamental change in the Constitution without any mandate from the people. They may be compelled to do that, and I am not regarding it as a conclusive point against the Bill, but it is a consideration which has to be taken into account when dealing with a point of this kind.
The two things which make the working classes deeply opposed to conscription are, firstly, the danger that military conscription may lead to industrial conscription, and, secondly, the danger with which this Amendment is concerned, that it might be used as a means to break strikes. It has been said that this Government may be under less temptation than any other Government to use this Bill in this way. I am afraid that I do not share that view. I think that the temptation for this Government to use the troops as strike breakers, particularly where an unofficial strike was involved, would be greater than for any other Government, because they feel—and I think they are entitled to feel—and the great majority of the people of this country feel, that a strike taking place in these circumstances is an evil thing in itself, and is hostile to the general purposes for which the Government were elected by an overwhelming majority. They might feel justified in stretching a point in this kind of issue, which no other Government would feel entitled to do.
It is in order to protect themselves against that kind of temptation that I urge the Government to accept this Amendment, or something like it. draw a distinction between official strikes and unofficial strikes in that matter. If we are conceding—and the overwhelming majority of this House has decided that we are—the rightness and necessity of this Measure, then it must be on the basis that the men who are to be subject to it are not used for a purpose outside the immediate necessity which leads us to give support to the Bill. That is why I thought that it was rather a mistake to drag into the discussion the question of the use of troops as strike breakers or in trade disputes. I would prefer the argument, on this occasion, to be limited to the narrow point which has been raised

by the Amendment, and not to be confused by the general, although important, considerations which come into the question of the use of troops as strike breakers.

The Attorney-General: I will come to the lucid and logical observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in a few moments, but, first, I must say that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the effect of this Clause. No new principle is introduced by this Bill; nothing is proposed to be done, or could be done, in this Bill which could not be done under the existing law. I can well understand the anxiety which has been expressed with great force and sincerity—which we all share—as to the possible use of Armed Forces as blacklegs or strike breakers. No question of anything of that kind arises under this Bill. I do not think that any Government in these days—and these days are very different from those of 20 years ago—whatever their political complexion, would lightly bring about military intervention in a trade dispute for, clearly, such intervention, which was not justified by the circumstances in a legitimate and proper trade dispute, might not only cause grave exacerbation of the situation, but would be illegal under the existing law, and would remain illegal under the provisions of this Bill.
It remains true, however, that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the maintenance of supplies and services which are essential to the life of the community. Subject to the control of Parliament—and that is the over-riding and effective safeguard which exists at all times in regard to this matter—Governments must govern. This Government does not propose to abdicate their responsibility in that respect or diminish their existing powers. We are not asking for additional powers. These powers arise not from this Bill, but under the Defence Regulations, which continue in force until the end of this year, from the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, the operation of which have to be subject to a prior proclamation, and from the existing wide powers to which I drew attention when we were discussing the repeal of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act of 1927.
1.15 a.m.
In addition to the powers which arise in those ways where it is a question of


maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, it is, of course, the common law duty of soldiers like ordinary citizens to assist the civil power in suppressing violence or disorder, and it would be a most peculiar thing if a section of the community should be exempted from that duty which is imposed upon everyone of us merely because that section happens to be in the service of the Crown at the time. The purpose of these Emergency Powers, which I have stated can only be brought into operation, apart from the temporary period which comes to an end this year, by a Proclamation under the Act of 1920, is not in the least to break a strike, but simply to ensure that whilst the dispute between employers and employees pursues its course, the life of the community is not imperilled by it. The forces would never be employed in the sense of taking sides with one or other of the parties to a dispute, but they must remain available to take the country's side if the life of the country is endangered by what has occurred, because there is no other effective way in which the Government can discharge their responsibility in maintaining vital supplies and services.
One can perhaps maintain this position with greater confidence in these days when the machinery exists for the settlement of industrial disputes which makes lockouts and strikes unnecessary. I realise, of course, that the employees not infrequently have very real causes of grievance, which might tempt them to take the' remedy into their own hands. The fault is by no means always on the one side in these matters, but if it is thought that the negotiating machinery is inadequate or the trade union leaders are not giving the right advice, the remedy by constitutional means is to change the machinery or to throw out the trade union leaders. There is no need to take action which might endanger the life of the community, because of an unofficial dispute of that kind. Where it does happen because of irresponsible action on the part of an employer or irresponsible action on the part of an employee, we are faced with the trouble of an unnecessary stoppage by a handful of individuals, who by their action might be endangering the life of the community. The community cannot be disabled through the Government not taking whatever action may be necessary to protect it.
I come to the point which was raised—and very properly raised—by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. This Bill is not intended to deal with the purposes for which the forces may be used, but only for their enlistment. Once they have been enlisted, as has been pointed out to the Committee earlier, a unit will consist in part of volunteers and in part of conscript men. It would be in the view of the Government—and the Committee will, I am sure, appreciate the difficulties of this matter—quite impossible for some members of a single unit to be liable to serve for a particular service and other members of the same unit not liable for that service. It would, I venture to think, be a most unfortunate thing if in any unit, which was composed partly of volunteers and partly of conscripts, an attempt were made to differentiate between them, and especially unfortunate if that attempt should be made at a time when any question arose of maintaining the life of the community, because that is the only purpose for which troops can be used under this Bill and under the existing law.
Not only would it be almost impossible to sort out the conscripts and the volunteers in order to deal with a matter in that way, but it would be suggested that what was being done was not serving the community, but blacklegging, which is exactly what cannot be done and what there will be no attempt to do under this Bill or under the existing law. I ask the Committee to accept from me that there is and there will be no power to use men in His Majesty's service to intervene in a trade dispute with the object of breaking a strike. In normal times, which will come again in a few months when the Emergency Powers come to an end, it is laid down that a state of emergency must be announced by Proclamation and such powers will not be used to break a strike but merely to maintain the life of the community. The Government must maintain that power.

Mr. Stanley: My Friends and I support the line that has been taken by the Attorney - General. He has very succinctly and fairly put what we believe and what, I think, most of the Members of the Committee will believe are the proper limitations to the use of troops in an industrial dispute. He has said


that they can only be used when it is not a case of taking the side 'of the employers or the side of the workers, but that it is necessary to use them in order to take the side of the nation. We agree entirely with that point of view, and I cannot conceive of any Government of any political complexion coming into power in the future which would use the troops in any sense but that one.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) has touched on the real point of importance. Whilst it may be true that neither this Government nor any other Government would use troops for breaking a strike, there is nothing to prevent them doing so.

Mr. Stanley: The Attorney-General will correct me, but I think the Emergency Powers Act of 1920 would prevent the use of troops in any case unless in the interests of the country, and certainly it would prevent their use in the interest of one side or another in an industrial dispute. I feel that the Committee as a whole has agreed with that limitation. I want to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) when he said that that is not what we are discussing under this Amendment.
There may be other occasions when it would be proper to raise the whole question of the use of troops in industrial disputes. We are assuming tonight that there are times when it is proper to use them, and what we have to decide, that being so, is whether we are entitled to use all the troops available, or whether we have to make a distinction between two sets of people who, at every other period of their military life, are to be treated in exactly the same way. I cannot conceive it is either practicable or right to create what at one stage in this Debate it was fashionable to call a dichotomy, but what I would simply call a division between these two classes. I do not think it is practicable, because I do not think that, if you are sending formed bodies of troops, as you must send farmed bodies, to perform any of the sort of functions we have seen them perform even in the last two months, you can seriously expect to break up the platoon, or whatever it may be, by telling

all those who come under this Measure to fall out. I do not think that is either practicable or desirable.
If it is right for the Government to have the power to use these troops, then there is nothing shameful about those powers being used, and it is quite wrong to behave as if there was something shameful, and because there was something shameful the conscripts have to be protected from it while the volunteers, the Regular Army, apparently are supposed to stand so much outside the ordinary life of the community that they can he used to do something which it would be dreadful to expect the conscripts to do. For those reasons, I entirely support the case made by the Solicitor-General[Interruption.] I beg the Attorney-General's pardon for the mistake, but the Solicitor-General, for once in a way, in his evening dress is even more like the lilies of the field than the Attorney-General.

Mr. Hale: The Attorney-General has said there is nothing new in this. The situation that is new tonight is that, for the first time, a Socialist Government is introducing a Measure of conscription in peacetime, and there are many of us on these Benches, and on the Government Front Bench, who have accepted that with the greatest reluctance. There has been no singing in the Division Lobby during the last two days. If the Government are going to ask us to accept a measure of industrial conscription in this Bill, I say definitely that, as far as I am concerned, I have gone as far as I can go. It is all very well to say that these powers will not be used in this way, but the duty of Parliament is to know what powers it is giving. I have heard nothing from the Attorney-General to say that these powers are not being given. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which powers?"] The power to call up the reserves to take part in an industrial dispute, or indeed to quell a riot by force of arms, if necessary. Let us face it. I understand that is the position.
I do not desire to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) in his dissertation upon the Regular Forces, because this Bill does not deal with them, and it would be out of Order to discuss the matter, but if the hon. and gallant Member wants to raise the question on the Army Act, I will support him in


that, too. In the meantime we are discussing young lads of 18 who are being taken from their homes and put into the Armed Forces, and we on these Benches, for some considerable time, have pressed for special conditions in their treatment, for education, for decent treatment for them, for some measure of supervision, and for a wholly better form of treatment than the Armed Forces have been in the habit of having in the past. I am very sorry to give a legal opinion after the rebukes from the Benches opposite. Whether my opinion is as good as that of the Attorney-General, I do not argue, because it is a matter on which there can be two opinions, and I doubt whether he and I would agree; but when he says that I can be used to quell a civil disturbance or a riot, he is completely wrong. I want to say that my son should not be so used either without his consent. This is a Bill to call up young men of 18 into the Armed Forces, and not into the docks, or any other form of labour.
1.30 a.m.
I want to say this because it is important. I do not know if the suggestion in the Amendment is that the Regular Army should be so used. The Regular soldier knows the existing law, and accepts it when he volunteers [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite really must not assume that the ignorance on those benches is common throughout this country. The Regular soldier knows that Regular forces are so used because he reads the ordinary morning newspapers. I want to point out that our Regular forces have a very great reputation, and a very great record in many spheres. They have a great record for tact. It is known to all hon. Members that they have shown, in the very difficult circumstances of the present time, the highest measure of tact and understanding, but one cannot expect that measure of understanding from young lads of 18.

Mr. Bramall: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that all the troops used at the Smithfield strike, or all the sailors at work on the Tower Bridge, are members of the Regnlar services?

Mr. Hale: Of course I am not so maintaining, and I think that such an observation is quite irrelevant to the matter being discussed now. The learned Attorney-

General has said that if there is an industrial dispute, it may be thought necessary to employ troops. But I would ask, what to do? When there is a lockout, to do the work of the men? Or are they to go on the board of directors and have the necessary increases of pay? Let us be serious about this.
Something has been said about the division of duties between conscripts and Regulars, but one knows the conditions under which they were called up, and there was no difficulty when I was in the Service in distinguishing on a Sunday morning between Roman Catholics or Presbyterians, or Church of England, or between those who cleaned the latrines and those who did not. If one needs volunteers and persons to help· on these occasions, there are 14 million people to be called on before we call on those who have been called up for the Services. I have listened to the learned Attorney-General, and I know that this question creates a seriously difficult situation. Nobody on the Front Bench desires to assume a new power in this matter, but it is important that we consider the full implications of this Clause, and I have heard nothing said which causes me to think that these young men are not to be used for strike breaking. There have been—I need hardly remind the Committee—strikes which have been described as "official" and strikes which we term "unofficial." It is a technical argument as to what is an "unofficial" strike and what is a strike of another type, and nobody seems able to say. But one cannot say what is an "essential service" and what can be termed as "non-essential" where there is a lockout. We have to consider what plans are to be used, but we should not say that we are going to use powers given on the statement of the Government that the defence situation was such that it necessitates this extremely important and controversial Measure, and then, at the same time, take these wide powers which we may in future have to use.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) rose, in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 61.

Division No. 191.]
AYES
[1.35 a.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Gilzean, A.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Popplewell, E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grey, C. F
Price, M. Philips


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Grierson, E.
Pryde, D. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Randall, H. E.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Ranger, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Baird, J.
Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Rhodes, H.


Barton, C.
Hardy, E. A.
Robens, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Binns, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Blenkinsop, A
Hewitson, Captain M.
Scollan, T.


Blyton, W R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Boardman, H.
House, G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hoy, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Bramall, E. A.
Hubbard, T.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Burden, T. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Solley, L. J.


Callaghan, James
Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Champion, A. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Stross, Dr. B.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Stubbs, A. E.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Swingler, S.


Coldrick, W.
Keenan, W.
Sylvester, G. O


Collindridge, F
King, E. M.
Symonds, A. L.


Collins, V. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Colman, Miss G. M
Kinley, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lang, G
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N.W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Leonard, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Corvedale, Viscount
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Tiffany, S.


Crawley, A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Tolley, L.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Walkden, E


Daines, P.
Logan, D. G.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Longden, F.
Warbey W. N


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAllister, G.
Watson, W. M


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Weitzman, D.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Delargy, H. J.
McKinlay, A. S.
West, D. G.


Diamond, J.
McLeavy, F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Driberg, T. E. N.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Dye, S.
Monslow, W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Williamson, T


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willis, E.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wise, Major F. J


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Woodburn, A.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
O'Brien, T.
Woods, G. S.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Paget, R. T.
Wyatt, W.


Foot, M. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Forman, J. C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Zilliacus, K.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Pargiter, G. A.



Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. Henderson Stewart


Gibbins, J.
Pearson, A.
and Mr. Simmons.


Gibson, C. W
Peart, Capt. T. F.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gage, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Hale, Leslie
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Birch, Nigel
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marsden, Capt. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Maude, J. C.


Butcher, H. W.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. 


Byers, Frank
Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Carmichael, James
Hope, Lord J.
Nally, W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Peto, Brig, C. H. M.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Linstead, H. N.
Pickthorn, K.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Rankin, J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Rayner, Brig. R.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McGovern, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. L.







Sargood, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Studholme, H. G.
Yates, V. F.


Stanley, Rt. Hon O.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)



Stephen, C.
Touche, G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and


Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Major Ramsay.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."

Division 192.
AYES.
[1.44 a.m.


Ayles, W. H.
Longden, F. 
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
McGovern, J.
Sargood, R.


Byers, Frank
Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Carmichael, James
Mikardo, Ian
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Stephen, C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Nally, W.



Delargy, H. J.
Rankin, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hale, Leslie
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Mr. Kinley and Mr. Yates


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)






NOES:


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Field, Capt. W. J
Marsden, Capt. A.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Foot, M. M.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maude, J. C.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Awbery, S. S.
Gage, C.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gibbins, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bacon, Miss A.
Gilzean, A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baird, J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Barton, C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
O'Brien, T.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Grey, C. F.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.


Bing, G. H C
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Binns, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Palmer, A. M. F.


Birch, Nigel
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pargiter, G. A


Blenkinsop, A
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parker, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Parkin, B. [...]


Bramall, E. A
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pearson, A


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Peart, Capt. T. [...]


Brown, George (Belper)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pete, Brig. C. H. M


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hewitson, Captain M.
Popplewell, E.


Burden, T. W.
Hollis, M. C.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Burke, W. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. Philips


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Lord J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Callaghan, James
House, G.
Pryde, D. J.


Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Ramsay, Maj. S


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Ranger, J.


Collindridge, F.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rhodes, H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Robens, A.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Corvedale, Viscount
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Crawley, A.
Keenan, W.
Ropner, Col. L.


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, E. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Daines, P.
Lambert, Hon. G
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lang, G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Leonard, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras S.W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Diamond, J.
Linstead, H. N.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Drewe, C.
Logan, D. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stross, Dr. B.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McAllister, G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dye, S.
Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.)
Studholme, H. G.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKinlay, A. S.
Swingler, S.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Symonds, A. L.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 208.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
West, D. G.
Wise, Major F. J.


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Woodburn, A.


Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woods, G. S.


Tiffany, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wyatt, W.


Tolley, L.
Wigg, Col. G. E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Touche, G. C.
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Walkden, E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)



Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, C. (Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Captain Michael Stewart


Watson, W. M.
Williamson, T.
and Mr. Simmons.


Weitzman, D.
Willis, E.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Commander Noble: There is one point on which I am not quite clear, and that is the position of the conscript serving in the Cadet Force, or one of the voluntary services, before he is called up. It might be that someone who is called up has been deferred while at the university, and that during the deferment he had joined one of these voluntary services. Will there be any guarantee that that man will be called up for the service in which he was serving, if he so wished?

Mr. Bellenger: I should think that an endeavour would be made to meet such a case where a man has had pre-service training. I believe that they get that guarantee in the case of cadets in the R.A.F. I cannot give the absolute guarantee in the case of the Army.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Voluntary service in lieu of tart-time service.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Brigadier Low: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War why there is no provision for a man volunteering for the Supplementary Reserve. There seems to be provision for all the other volunteer elements. This omission is curious, because it comes at the time when the Secretary of State for War has just made a statement to the Press about resurrecting the Supplementary Reserve In view of the decision reached to reduce the period to 12 months, there would be fewer national service men who reached commissioned rank during their service. If that is so, there will be a greater demand in all three Services for officers to serve in the acting part of the Forces. I

think I am right in saying that the Supplementary Reservist is distinguished from the volunteer by the fact that he does his service, not in the Auxiliary forces, but in the Regular forces, for a short time. There would seem to be good reason for requiring more, rather than fewer, officers in the acting forces, so I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why there is no provision for volunteering for the Supplementary Reserve.

Mr. Bellenger: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at line 9 of the Clause he will see the words "Army Reserve." Those words cover the Supplementary Reserve.

Question put, and agreed to

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I desire to ask the Government if they would tell us their intentions in respect of the Bill tonight, as I think it would be helpful if we could know how far they propose to proceed. A large measure of interest has been taken in the Bill today, as has been shown by the speeches which have come from all parts of the Committee. Matters of considerable importance are now looming up, and we ought to know whether the Government intend to deal with them at this late hour, or whether they intend to adopt the normal procedure.

Mr. Alexander: It is very necessary to get this Bill completed by tomorrow night. We made an arrangement, through the usual channels, that the original time allocated for the Bill should be two days, but because of the special importance attached to the Government Amendment which we discussed today, an arrangement was made to have an extra day. We are now much behind schedule. It is essential to get the Bill, and we propose to go on tonight to get Clause 19, or Clause 20.

Mr. Eden: It depends, of course, whether the Government wish the Committee to partake in the discussion or not. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was no agreement as to the number of days to be spent on the Bill. It is true that two days were suggested originally and that we asked for three days because one Amendment would require a full day's discussion. That Amendment has taken up most of today. I much regret the right hon. Gentleman's decision. I do not think it is in the interests of the Bill or the interests of the people of the country.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is essential to get the Bill by tomorrow night? Is there any defence reason why it is essential that this Bill should go through? Why does he use the word "essential"? Essential to defence? Is he now taking over the functions of the Leader of the House? Does he mean that it is convenient to his party when he uses the word "essential," or what does he mean?

Mr. Alexander: I speak in the general sense of the need of the Government to get through their programme. We intend to do that.

Mr. Butcher: The Minister of Defence has not given any satisfactory answer to what has been said by Members on this side of the House. Why is it necessary at this late hour of the morning to consider a Bill which affects the life of every young man in this country? [An HON. MEMBER: "Because we want to."] An hon. Gentleman behind the Government Front Bench interjects, "Because we want to." If that is going to be the sort of interjection that is going to come from behind the Government Front Bench there will be many speeches made on this side which cannot be charged as being obstructions. Hon. Gentlemen must learn that to get their legislation through, not only is it necessary to make arrangements through the usual channels, but they must show the courtesy to the minority which is usual in this House.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I was shocked by the right hon. Gentleman. He has not been very well treated by his own supporters and he seems to have no consideration for the Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman says, we all want to get this Bill through in a reasonable time. Many of us

realise that this Bill is of a very important character to the people of this country, and I say quite candidly, having supported the Bill when it could have been so easy to have taken another and easier line, that I might have expected more consideration from the right hon. Gentleman for the Committee. If there had only been more efficient administration there would have been no difficulty in getting the programme through, and I fail to see why the Committee should be kept up now dealing with these details simply because the Government have made a mess of their own affairs as well as those of the country.

Mr. J. Hudson: I wish to add my voice to the protests which have been made, and I think that the Government ought to reconsider this matter and see whether it is possible to avoid proceeding now with the long list of Amendments which have yet to be taken. I ask the Government to consider this in view of the fact, as the Opposition speakers rightly said, that the Government took such a long time on an Amendment in which they were deeply interested. There are a very large number of important Amendments yet to come. We have been closured on some of them when many of us were on our feet trying to take part in the discussion. We expect that, but if we are to take the long series of Amendments on the Order Paper that will carry us well into the coming day. I submit that the Government are not fair to their own side in pressing forward with this matter, and I would ask them to reconsider the question.

Mr. Alexander: I should like to save the time of Members on all sides of the Committee. We want to get on as far as we can get, and if we work quickly now perhaps in a little while we can see how things are. If we get on with the job now perhaps we will make some progress.

Mr. Stanley: We are put in a great difficulty. To start with, the right hon. Gentleman announced a programme which I think all of us know is quite ridiculous. We have got to Clause 3 and he now proposes that we should get another 16 Clauses during the night. A considerable number of important points are to be raised, and not all of them from one side of the House. All of them require discussion, and they should be given real discussion at a proper hour. In proposing this programme, we see the right hon.


Gentleman in a dictatorial mood. Sometimes we see him in a frigid form, but when we ask him now what progress he proposes making, he says in his dictatorial tone, "This is our programme and we mean to get it," and when a reason is sought we are told by one of his supporters behind him, "Because we want it." He cannot do that and then afterwards appeal to us and ask us to be reasonable. If the right hon. Gentleman

Division No. 193.]
AYES.
[2.8 a.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Birch, Nigel
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon O.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Byers, Frank
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maude, J. C.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Touche, G. C.


Gage, C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Wadsworth, G.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Head, Brig. A H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hollis, M. C.
Pickthorn, K.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hope, Lord J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.



Lambert, Hon, G.
Ramsay, Major S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Keenan, W.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
King, E. M


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dye, S.
Kinley, J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lang, G.


Austin, H. Lewis
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Leonard, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lindgren, G. S.


Bacon, Miss A.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Baird, J.
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Barton, C.
Forman, J. C.
Longden, F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McAllister, G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bing, G. H. C.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.M.)


Binns, J.
Gibbins, J.
McKinlay, A. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W
McLeavy, F.


Blyton, W. R.
Gilzean, A.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Boardman, H
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mellish, R. J.


Bramall, E. A.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grierson, E.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Burke, W. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Nally, W.


Callaghan, James
Hale, Leslie
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R,
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Coldrick, W.
Hardy, E. A.
O'Brien, T.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paget, R. T.


Collins, V. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hewitson, Captain M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pargiter, G. A.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
House, G.
Parkin, B. T.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Corvedale, Viscount
Hubbard, T.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Crawley, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Daines, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Price, M. Philips


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pryde, D. J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Randall, H. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ranger, J.


Diamond, J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robens, A.

would outline a reasonable programme I think everybody in the Committee would do their utmost to expedite business, but when he sets an absolutely absurd programme it is apt to incite people who know how absurd the programme is.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 188.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Stubbs, A. E.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Swingler, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Rogers, G. H. R.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Symonds, A. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Sargood, R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Williamson, T.


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Willis, E.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wise, Major F. J.


Simmons, C. J.
Tiffany, S.
Woodburn, A.


Skeffington, A. M.
Tolley, L.
Woods, G. S.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wyatt, W.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Walkden, E.
Yates, V. F.


Snow, Capt. J. W
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Solley, L. J.
Warbey W. N.
Zilliacus, K.


Sorensen, R. W.
Watson, W. M.



Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Weitzman, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E,)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Popplewell.


Stress, Dr. B.
West, D G.

Brigadier Low: May I raise a point of Order? Bearing in mind the fact that outside this House there are a large number of men waiting with buses, ought we not to send from this Committee a note telling them when we are likely to rise?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order for the Chair.

CLAUSE 4.—(Transfer.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is one point in this Clause on which we should like an assurance. As I understand it, it gives power to compel the transfer of forces and in certain cases at the individual's own request. I understand that in no case will the transfer be compelled unless it has regard to the individual's particular qualifications. I would like to he told whether or not there is any intention of using this power of compulsory transfer to make transfers of what might be called large blocks, as, for instance, from the Auxiliary Reserve to the Army Reserve, in which case they could be called up as required.

Brigadier Low: It would appear from the wording that this compulsory transfer applies not only to those persons who are doing their term of service under the Act, but also to those persons who would be doing a term of part-time service unless they had volunteered for the Auxiliary forces, in other words, that a man who has volunteered as a volunteer in the Territorial Army and has submitted himself to the extended obligations of the Territorial Army volunteer service, can be transferred by the Army authorities against his will. Is that so, or not? Secondly, will the Minister explain why the Clause says:
provide for the transfer of any person to the royal naval reserve, the royal naval

volunteer reserve, the royal air force volunteer reserve or the auxiliary air force except at his own request.
Why is the Army to be put in this inferior position?

Mr. N. Macpherson: There is a point of some consequence I would like to put. In the earlier part of the proceedings the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence referred to his intention to make certain that tradesmen would be put into jobs in the Forces in which they could carry on their own trades. There is another point here which is equally important, and that is that in so far as it is at all possible, a man should he put into units corresponding to the Territorial units in his own district. This is a most important point, and the reason why I raise it is because of the power given requiring persons serving in any auxiliary force to transfer. I think that it is apt to give the Service authorities too easy a "let-up". They can disregard the unit in which a man is to be placed when he is first called up, and later, they can transfer him. There should be special regard to the Territorial forces which exist in the district of the man who is called un so that, when he comes out of the Service, he may go into the appropriate unit. For example, it might he quite useless to post a man to the Royal Armoured Corps if there was no unit of the Royal Armoured Corps to which he could he posted when he had finished his training. That is the reason why I put down the Amendment which the Chair has not seen fit to call. Another reason why I put it down is that, while it is simple enough to change units, it is a very different matter when it comes to changing corns, and I do not see the reason for asking a man to change his corns if he has not expressed a desire so to do.

Mr. Alexander: It is essential to have the Clause as it stands because the Service authorities must have the power to make transfers where necessary in order that the balance in strength in general, and in particular categories of specialists, can be adjusted. The fact stands out that, in some cases, one will find people who will go back to civil life and to the Reserve, and, having developed a skill, they will be of value to the unit to which they can be posted. Of course, some might elect to be transferred. Others might have to be asked if they would be willing to accept transfer, but I can assure the Committee that there is no intention of using this Clause for the purpose of what had been termed "block transfers." This is to meet the circumstances which I have mentioned, and also to get the skill in the right place.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered the question. Under the second part of this Clause, it is perfectly possible for any person, quite outside the scope of the Act, to enlist in the Royal Naval Reserve with the sincere intention of taking part in naval life. But then, without warning, this person can be transferred to the Army. It is exactly the same in the case of the Royal Air Force. There is no reason why the "balance of specialists," as it has been called, should be applied in this extraordinary manner. Surely the Minister must realise that, if this Clause is carried out literally—and there is no reason to doubt that it will not—then anybody who chooses a voluntary service job outside the scope of this Bill will not be entitled to follow on in the branch which he desires. He may be drafted at any moment, at the wish or whim of the Service Ministers into any other branch of the services. For that reason I think that this Clause needs very careful consideration before the Committee passes it. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has said time and time again, quite irrespective of this Bill, that he does expect the great bulk of public opinion represented by recruitment into these voluntary forces to support whatever measures this House may pass.
What he is saying in this Clause is that these people may join whatever branch of the Services they wish to join, but that he reserves the right to transfer them from,

say, the Navy, into the Army, the Royal Air Force, or anywhere else as he pleases. That does not seem to me to be the way the Committee should proceed. We ought to protect the wishes of someone who desires the enter the Navy, where it may be that he could use his expert knowledge, and endeavour to ensure that he is enabled to perform his service in the way he likes. As this Clause is drafted, that is not the position. Before the Clause is passed, I hope that someone on the Front Bench will give us a more detailed and satisfactory explanation than that which the Minister has given us. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation was simply that he must do what he likes when he likes, and was jolly well going to do it.

Mr. Alexander: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this point regarding the auxiliary forces. I can assure the Committee that the power given in this Clause is not going to be used arbitrarily. But one may get someone in an Auxiliary force who wants to join a Naval Auxiliary force, or something of that kind. He may be serving in a part of the country where it is impossible to attach him to the force which he wishes to join. Therefore we would like to persuade him to join some other force in which he can do his training for the time being, though we might be able to make arrangements for him to do the other part of his training with the Navy. We want to be as elastic as possible, but let us have power to do it in relation to these people. I give an assurance that it will not be used in any sense arbitrarily, but only to give the men the best possible service which is convenient to them.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it, or is it not, the fact that what I have said of this Clause is true?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement about the interpretation of this Clause, and about the action which the Service authorities propose to take upon it. It is quite apparent, following his statement, that the terms of the Clause are far wider than the purpose for which he wants it. After listening to the observations of hon. Members behind me, and the Minister's observations, I do not think that there is much controversy as to the purpose of the Clause. But all people do not get HANSARD and many will be surprised to see where they stand and what


their liabilities are likely to be. Will the right hon. Gentleman see if he can include some words of limitation in the Clause? The point which is causing concern is the element of compulsion which is retained in this Clause for the Service authorities; power to compel without any principle being stated and without any limitation upon that power. I do think that some words could be found to express what the right hon. Gentleman has said regarding his wish to limit the power of compelling a person to transfer from one reserve to another and, it may be, to transfer his liability to service in one part of the country to another. I would ask him to look at this matter again.

Mr. Alexander: I think that the hon. and learned Member is going rather wider now in the pressure to reconsider this matter than I gathered from his previous statement. But I see that there is a possibility of misunderstanding of the interpretation of this Clause. I am quite willing to undertake to have another look at it before the Report stage.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: This point has been repeatedly put and I think we are entitled to an answer. In the second part of the Clause a difference is drawn between the Reserves and Auxiliaries of the Navy and Air Force as compared with the Army. Why can a member of the Navy and Air Force only be transferred to the R.N.V.R., the R.A.F.V.R. and Auxiliary Air Force at his own request? Is it because the Government consider that these services demand a degree of devotion or skill the Army does not? If so, are they not giving away the whole case?

Mr. Alexander: I should have thought it was very clear that the type of force we have to maintain and the kind of services rendered and the conditions under which they are rendered in the Navy and Air Force make it reasonable to say in the case of the R.N.V.R. and R.A.F.V.R. that they should only be transferred under this Clause at their own request. We have to maintain the necessary numbers of the land force, and the proportion to the other services. There is no differentiation against the Army.

Mr. Byers: I asked the Minister specifically if he would give us the figures of each of the Services and tell us what their proportion is. Now at this late stage he

refuses to give those figures and merely refers to general proportions.

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Byers: The Minister himself referred to the proportions. I am asking him to tell us what they are.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Do I understand that if there is a Division, though we have accepted his assurance, the Minister will not reconsider this?

Mr. Alexander: If this Clause is carried to a Division the position is somewhat altered. I have been very willing to meet the Committee on this matter.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: But the right hon. Gentleman must be under a misapprehension. We have not challenged a Division on this point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Liability to complete interrupted service.)

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out from "shall, to "attained," in line 36, and to insert:
unless he has attained the age of thirty-six years or has ceased to be liable under this Act to be called up for service otherwise than by reason of his having".
We discussed this matter earlier in the Committee stage and you undertook, Mr. Beaumont, to allow a wider discussion of the question on this Amendment. The general purpose of the Amendment is to redeem the undertaking given by the Minister earlier to place an upper age limit so that men would be clear as to their obligations. The position is that men are liable from the age of 18 to 26. There are two exceptions, first, in the case of doctors and dentists, and, second, in the case of students. Some students can get their deferment up to the age of 25½ years, and then apply to the hardship committee for postponement beyond the age of 26. The intention of this Amendment is to prevent them from escaping the liability which they would legally have, but morally ought not to have. This Amendment also deals with those


men who have been called up but have not done their full time. Take the case of a man who has joined the R.A.F. to do his 12 months' training. It may be found, during his period of training, that he can never become an airman, and the service may discharge him. That will not relieve him of his liability to do his 12 months' service in the military forces. Then there is the case of the man who volunteers to join the Army without being conscripted, whose behaviour in the first two or three months warrants his discharge. That man is not to be allowed to escape, and he will have to serve the same as everyone else.
In regard to part-time service, in the case of the man who has joined from full-time service and has taken up a Commission, but is found within a short period not to make a suitable officer and is discharged, he will be called up to do his 60 days' service. Unless this provision were in the Bill, we could not call up these men to complete their service. We also have the position of the man who has done his full-time service and then joins the Regular Army, or the Territorials, and having done his 60 days, jumps out. He will have done his 60 days with gratuity, whereas the ordinary conscript has to do his 60 days over a longer period, and without a gratuity. It is to catch these cases that this Amendment has been proposed.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am a little surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should not have referred to the fact that there is an Amendment on the Order paper in the names of myself and my hon. Friends, to do precisely what the Government are now proposing to do. I am glad that the Government have adopted the suggestion of the Opposition to incorporate this in the Bill. I cannot accept some of the observations of the hon. Gentleman as being in the least degree accurate as to what the Amendment does. I agree that many of his observations were directed to justifying the provisions of the Clause itself, in providing liability of complete interrupted service. The whole point of the Amendment, and our Amendment, is to put a ceiling on that liability. The hon. Gentleman omitted to make clear that the Amendment imposes a ceiling only in the case where the man's service is interrupted after he has been serving in the Armed Forces. In his

preliminary remarks, the hon. Gentleman indicated that he was meeting a point raised earlier tonight.

Mr. Ness Edwards: What I tried to explain was the general position under Clause 1. I agree that I was skating on thin ice, that I was in danger of getting out of Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Then I cannot see what satisfaction the hon. Gentleman gave. It is clear that this Amendment does not apply except in the case of the man who has come out of the Armed Forces. There is no provision in the Bill for a ceiling of age liability in any other case. I am glad that the suggestion which came from this side of the Committee has been accepted, but I think that the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged our assistance in this matter.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry.

Mr. Walkden: I do not wish to be obstructive, but it is necessary to put a point on this Amendment. A previous Minister of Labour, now my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, was in office when inquiry was made about men who had been serving in the Royal Air Force, and who had been discharged on medical grounds. There was a suspicion that there had been some "fiddling" at some stage. There were prizefighters, and various other people, of whom the then Minister of Labour said, "I do not propose to interfere with the decision of the doctors. Once a man has been certified as medically unfit for one Service I cannot call him up for another Service." Men came out of the Service classed as medically unfit, but they were able to persuade the doctors of the British Boxing Board of Control that they were seven times fit to fight for a purse of thousands of pounds. Where there is such a type of man in the future, and he is not certified as fit to serve in one Service, cannot he be made to serve in the Pioneer Corps, or do sentry duty? Let us have the position stated clearly, because it was a position which was repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who is now the Foreign Secretary. He allowed boxers to escape and get out through one door, and I want to know whether there is not a way of overtaking these boxers and bringing them back through another door for service under the Bill.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Byers: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) in regard to his unit, the Royal Corps of Sentry Duty. I want to put this point very seriously to the Minister, because I feel there has been some misunderstanding on the point. It will be within the memory of the Committee that earlier art Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) and we were assured that the point would be met at a later stage. I should like to know whether this is where that point is being met, because it is quite clear that this Clause does not cover exemption in any way. That was the point which was raised specifically by my hon. Friend and we were given to understand that there was an age limit for exempted classes. I understand that coalminers are going to be exempted under this Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Deferred.

Mr. Byers: They are going to be deferred so long as they are coalminers. In other words, this Amendment will not apply to them, or will it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, it will not apply to them.

Mr. Byers: As soon as he ceases to be a coalminer at the age, say, of 25 a man is not liable for military service?

Mr. Isaacs: 26.

Mr. Byers: Can we get this absolutely clear? When a coalminer reaches the age of 26 he has no further liability for national service of any kind?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The difficulty with this Amendment is that it deals only with men who have already gone into the Service. The men who have reached the age of 26 during deferment are not liable to be called up.

Mr. Byers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I presume that that applies, too, to agricultural workers. I am sorry to have taken up the time of the Committee, but I think there was some misunderstanding on the point. The only other point which I should like to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary is in regard to the age of 36. On what grounds was it chosen? It is perfectly logical to take eight years and add that

to 26, which gives 34. Is there any particular reason for 36? Furthermore, when a man has reached the age of 35 can he be called up for his seven years' training? If he can, that seems to be a most uneconomical way to train a man up to 40, because after 40 it is not likely that the State will get much useful service out of him.

Mr. Stanley: The Parliamentary Secretary has just quite categorically replied to the hon. Gentleman with regard to the position of those under the age of 26 who have had their call-up deferred. Has. Clause 17, which deals with postponement, no effect whatever on the position of a miner?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There seems to be some confusion as to the use of the terms "postponement" and "deferment." Those terms begin to assume some special function in the machine. Postponement is something for which a man asks on grounds of domestic hardship, which is decided by the Hardship Committee, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) had something to do with under an earlier Military Service Act. Deferment is something that is granted by the Manpower Board on either industrial, educational or professional grounds, and covers such persons as apprentices, learners, students, articled clerks and so on. Clause 17 deals with those cases who have applied for consideration on compassionate grounds. With regard to the age of 36 which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers), doctors are liable for service at a later age than 26 and it is necessary in order that all doctors shall enjoy the full benefit of deferment, in order to qualify as specialists and whom we want to use in the Armed Forces, to ensure that they shall not escape their full liability. Thus the upper age limit of 36 will apply in those cases.

Mr. Byers: I am grateful for the explanation, but will a man who has been deferred until he is 35 have to serve until he is 42?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought I had made that clear. A man who has been deferred up to the age of 26 escapes liability, but a man who applies for postponement and comes to 36 does not escape.

Mr. Walkden: I would again raise with the hon. Gentleman the very important matter which I mentioned earlier. Why is he dodging the column which was dodged entirely by the Coalition Government? These men to whom I referred dodged the column and I want to know if there is any power whereby they can be brought back after they have escaped.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have been explaining that that is what we intend to do.

Mr. Walkden: Thank you very much.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Shackleton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert:
Provided that a person's term of whole-time service shall be deemed to be completed if at any time after the start of the said) term, he is discharged or released from service in the armed forces, otherwise than at his own request.
This Amendment is simple and uncontroversial, and I think it will command general support from the Committee. My only doubt on the subject of the acceptability of this Amendment to the Government is that these particular Clauses are so very obscure and difficult to understand that I am not sure whether the Amendment fully meets the needs and the purpose which we wish to serve. After the remarkable revelations which we had from the Parliamentary Secretary a few minutes ago, I hope that some more revelations will come in reply to this Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the Service authorities do not play "cat and mouse" with any national service man who does not complete his training in the statutory period for any reason which is not his fault and which is primarily due to the failure of the Service authorities to provide training facilities. In fact, there are a number of different circumstances in which the power in the Bill can be exercised. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 5 (1), in which it is made clear that the Service authorities can call back for further service a man who for any reason has not completed his whole-time or part-time service. There are a number of different sets of circumstances in which this power may be operated. For instance, a man might receive temporary release for some compassionate reason, and obviously the wording of the Amendment

which we are supporting excludes such a case. Then there is the man whose term of service is interrupted as a result of some illegal act of his own resulting in imprisonment, and the First Schedule covers that case, I think, because in that Schedule there is power for the Service authorities to postpone the completion of the full term of service. The case in which we are interested is the case of the man whom the Service authorities have to release because they cannot make proper use of him, due to lack of training facilities, for instance. The only clue we have to such a state of affairs was given on Second Reading by the Minister of Labour, who said:
For example, we are informed by the Royal Air Force that a man being trained as one of an air-crew, may reach a certain part of his training at the end of 12 months, and that the time left to him is not sufficient for him to go right through the next stage; and that it might be better to release him, and to carry on with his part-time training, at the end of 12 months. We have taken power in the Bill to allow that, should it be necessary; but if a national service man is released for any of these reasons from full time service before the 18 months expire, he will be expected to make good that time by a little extra time in the part time service training programme, and so to make up, to some extent, the full time lost.—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st Mar, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1680.]
Under Clause 5 (1) and (2), it appears that there are powers to compel him to make that up; yet, a little while ago, the Minister indicated that anyone volunteering to be air crew would, in fact, enter voluntarily into an agreement to make up the extra time that was necessary to permit him to do his duties as a member of air crew. So we are in some doubt as to the use that is to be made of the powers in the Bill. It is quite unreasonable that a man who, through no fault of his own, may find himself released in the middle of his training, should be liable to be called back for a further term of full-time training. The power is in the Bill for that to be done, because, in Subsection (2):
The Service Authorities shall by regulations make provision for defining what terms of service shall be treated as equivalent to terms of whole-time and part-time service for the purposes of this Section and for prescribing the terms of whole-time or part-time service which will, with any service completed by any person, be equivalent to the terms of service for which persons are liable under Section one of this Act.
3.0 a.m.
If a man, in the middle of his whole-time training in the Services, is suddenly


released and finds himself liable in the future to be called up again up to the age of 36, it may be a very serious impediment to his getting a job. An employer might take the view that if he were liable to lose a man after a period of a few months, it would not be worth while taking him on. Even a period of extra part-time service might be a serious and undue hardship, because it may involve the man in a certain amount of extra training each year. So, I think, it should be made quite clear that if a man's training is not completed the first time he is called up, he should, if released for reasons I have just given, be considered to have finished service. There is one snag, but I hope the Minister will not use it as a reason for rejecting the Amendment. This is, that a man who volunteers, for instance for air crews, if found to be unsuitable and transferred to the Army would possibly have to be discharged from the Air Force. I do not know whether the transfer could be made between the two Services. If he had to be discharged first, obviously the Amendment I am moving would not cover that case but it would be easy, I submit, for the Minister to undertake to produce an Amendment which would meet it. What we ask is, that when national service men are called up, they should be made use of during the first period of full time training and if it is necessary for them to be put on half-time, the Government should not tie those men. They should be finally released.

Mr. Bellenger: I can sympathise with the point put by the hon. Member. His fear is that the Services, or one of them, might play "cat and mouse" with the men. It is not the intention of any one of the Services to release a man and then pull him back, and keep, as it were, a sword suspended over his head during the period for which he is liable under this Bill. But the purpose of this Clause is to deal with just some of those technical points which the hon. Member has raised. For example, it is necessary, if a man is transferred from one service to another, or from one reserve to another, that he should be discharged from that reserve and should then be enlisted in the other one. It is also necessary in the case of a man who is commissioned. Before he is commissioned, he is discharged from his other rank service. Obviously, it would be unfair if, between a discharge

from the ranks and the commissioning, something happened which enabled him to avoid his proper service under the Bill. It is for those reasons that we want this Clause.
My hon. Friend has referred to the case where the man is released temporarily on compassionate grounds at his own request, which is the normal procedure. Obviously, in such a case we shall have to write to recall him, but we shall recall him only if such a course would be worth while to the Service. That is, if there is enough unexpended liability so that it would be worth while to continue his training. Reference has been made to the Royal Air Force, with comments on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the Second Reading of this Bill. There, the Minister was dealing with a situation which was definite, and he said that there was power in the Bill to reduce the period of 18 months. But that has been changed to twelve months, and I understand that the Royal Air Force does not intend to release men now that the period is only twelve months. So, the situation will not arise which was contemplated when that speech was made by my right hon. Friend; the situation whereby a man would be released and would then undertake, voluntarily, to do duty in the reserve. For technical reasons in the main, we must have the right to recall a man for the unexpired portion of his service except in those cases where we discharge him, or where there is the proviso in the compassionate cases. When I say we shall discharge him, I mean that we shall discharge him finally unless he goes to another arm, or is commissioned. I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend and removed the apprehensions which he had.

Colonel Wigg: I am not completely satisfied. I understand that there are powers to meet a situation which arises when a man who is in the ranks is commissioned. The situation there has always been, I think, a little odd because when a man is commissioned, he is discharged from the Army under the category of "services no longer required." That seems a little slovenly and it has an unfortunate effect. I am sure that it is not a question of satisfying my hon. Friend, or any other hon. Member, but of satisfying the young men and women who will buy copies of this Bill when it becomes an Act, in order to see what their position is. They will look at


one part and see one thing; then they will look at Clause 5 and find something else. It should not be left in this loose way so that people may go out but never know when they will be called back again.

Mr. Paget: I find the explanation of the Secretary of State wholly unsatisfactory. This is a Bill the object of which is to make military service fit into the general and ordinary life of the community. It is essential that people should know when they are going to be called up and when they are going to be released. It is essential, too, that their employers should know these things, because their employers have to find jobs for them when they return to civilian life. It must be understood that this is a definite and specific liability. Here is a Clause which in terms provides that the Army can take a man, give him a course, and then, saying that it has no other course available for the time being, send him on leave for about six months, later calling him up for another course. On the present basis, that could be done almost indefinitely. It may well be that while my right hon. Friend is in charge of the War Office he will see that this does not happen in his branch of the Services. In other branches it may be different. But my right hon. Friend perhaps will not always be in charge of the War Office. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for each citizen to give a period of service, and the wording of the Bill should make clear the intention of the Bill. I would say to my right hon. Friend that it is for him and the Parliamentary draftsmen to think out a form of words which express the intentions of the Bill. Let us have a specific assurance that when we come to the Report stage he will provide some words which do express what he says it is the intention of the Government to do. On receiving that assurance, we certainly will not press this Amendment. But we shall press it if we do not get that assurance.

Mr. Stanley: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into this again. I accept, as I think we all do, his assurance that the form of words in the Amendment will not do. There are, as he mentioned, two technical points in this Amendment which would allow a man to step out, when it is nobody's desire that he should be able to do so. At the same time, the

right hon. Gentleman has quite fairly informed the Committee that with the exception of these technical points it is the Government's intention that any discharge or release at a man's own request shall be final. But it does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of the right hon. Gentleman, or at any rate of the Parliamentary draftsmen, to find a form of words which would cover the case which quite rightly he wants to cover and at the same time meet the perfectly legitimate demands which have been made. It is true that he said that there is no intention on the part of the War Office or the Service authorities, if a man is released or discharged, ever to call him up again. The fact is that on the Statute Book will remain a power for the Service authorities to do so. The man, I think, is entitled in those circumstances to have a statutory protection, rather than the mere protection of a statement by a Minister, which I am sure is valid so long as that Minister holds office, but is not the reassurance for the man or his employer, which a statutory protection would give.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I have been long enough in this House to know that whatever form of words are found, somebody will criticise them. Still I want to make the Clause as watertight as possible and to express clearly the intentions of the Government. If this Clause is not sufficiently clear I am prepared to look into it again.

Mr. Shackleton: In view of the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman who promised to make the Clause watertight—and as it is obvious to everyone it is not watertight, I hope that means he will be doing something about it—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after "therein," to insert:
not being earlier than the fourteenth day after the day on which the notice was served.
A man called up for part-time service is deemed to be duly entered on the day on which he gets notice of calling up for that part-time service and it is suggested by this Amendment to give to a man following a civil occupation, 14 days more. He


will have certain arrangements to make. He will have to give notice to his employer and make certain domestic arrangements. There is no great reason why he should not be given 14 days' grace. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this very simple Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I ask that this Amendment should be withdrawn. This is only a case of a notice served on a man who has completed his full-time service, as to what his period of service will be, the date on which it commences and the place in which it will be served. It is not the actual call-up form. It is merely giving him formal notice as he leaves fulltime service of his liability and where it will be discharged. Subsequently he will get a proper notice telling him where to report and when, so that he will have plenty of time. It will not interfere with his domestic arrangements at all. He will get adequate notice of the place to which he has to report to do his part-time service. There is really no need for this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, at the end, to add:
Provided that any person on whom such notice is served may, within seven days from the service thereof, if he disputes his liability for part-time service, serve a notice in writing on the service authority concerned, stating the grounds on which he disputes his liability, and thereupon he shall not be deemed to be entered or enlisted for part-time service unless and until a court of summary jurisdiction has held him to be so liable.
In the case of whole-time liability, any person who wishes to query his liability is able to utilise the procedure under the original Act, which is contained in Section 3. It is for the courts to decide whether or not a man is justified in not presenting himself for a medical examination. It appears that there is no provision made, in the case of part-time service, for a man to make a protest as to his liability to call up for part-time service. It seems that he will render himself liable to punishment and apprehension, as prescribed in Clause 6 (3), which I do not think is desirable. It happened frequently during the war that a man was called up, and it was not until he appeared before a court martial that it was discovered that he was not liable to call-up. It is suggested here that he should have the same protection as the man who is called up for full-time service.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Under the principal Act, a man is deemed to be enlisted once he is served with a notice. There were many cases during the war, where a man could only dispute his liability by disobeying the notice, being arrested and then appearing before a court martial. Under Section II of the principal Act, there is a wide variety of categories of persons not liable to be called up. If a mistake is made, and a man is served with a notice, who may come within these categories, the only machinery which exists at the present time is for him to disobey the notice. He will then be treated as absent without leave, or as a deserter, and will be arrested. It is not until he has been before a court martial that it can be shown that the Act does not apply to him. That has been the practice under the 1939 Act. So far as part-time service is concerned, the same procedure will apply under this Bill. It may be that a man has done his fulltime service; and since its completion has ceased to be resident in this country, in which case he cannot be a person upon whom a notice can properly be served. It may be that he wishes to dispute the extent of his part-time service, but there is no machinery available whereby his liability can be determined. As I understand it, anyone served with a notice under Subsection (3), if he wishes to dispute the notice, can only follow the same course as in the last war.
The purpose of the Amendment is to avoid that, because I do not think that a court martial is the right tribunal to determine a person's liability for service under this Bill. I think that it should come before a civil court. It does not at the present time. One has had experience of cases of people from Eire, who have been in this country, and who have been served with enlistment notices and have said that they ought not to have been served with them. In numerous cases the only way in which that has been determined has been by trial before a court martial. The same might apply when notice has been served on the wrong person in error, and to the person who is outside the age limit. I do not suggest that this Amendment is correctly drafted, but its purpose is to ensure that if a man gets an enlistment notice, and disputes his liability, he can give counter notice to the Service Department, stating the ground on which he disputes the notice, and then


he shall not be deemed to have been enlisted in the Service until the matter has been adjudicated upon by a court of summary jurisdiction. There is a precedent for that procedure. If an absentee, or deserter, is arrested by a civil authority his case has to go before a court of summary jurisdiction before he is handed over to the military authorities.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am certainly not unsympathetic to the point which has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not think that either he or the mover of the Amendment have looked closely enough at it. This is merely the notice of the time for which the man must serve; it is not a calling-up notice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Clause he will see that its words are similar to those in the National Service Act, 1939. They are:
and upon the notice being served upon him he shall be deemed to be entered or enlisted accordingly.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The notice tells the man the length of the time he has to serve, and at what place. It is not actually a call up to report for duty. That is what I am advised. r can understand the hon. and learned Gentleman raising this point when we discuss the call up for whole-time service.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is an Amendment on the Paper raising the same point in respect of the call up for whole-time service.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This Amendment wants us to concede something that has never been conceded in the past. By and large, I do not think that the call up has worked badly. Seldom have the wrong men been called up. Difficulty, in some cases, has occurred when men have been deferred.
I take the matter a step further and say that when a man is leaving his full-time service he is given this notice in accordance with this Clause, and on that note, he is deemed to be an enlisted man in the reserve Forces for a period of six years. On that notice will be indicated the unit which he is to serve, and the place to

which he has to report for duty, but the date on which he has to report is not on that notice. He will receive a subsequent notice informing him when to report and it is at that stage that some action might be taken.
There is one other point. When he gets this notice, if he disputes the liability—and it will be customary to give him that notice when he is leaving his unit—he can take the matter up with his commanding officer. If, on the other hand, it is posted to the address which he has given, he can still communicate with his commanding officer disputing the terms of the notice. That I understand is the position. Supposing he cannot take the matter up with his commanding officer, then I am advised that he can be arrested and tried as a deserter by the local magistrates. It will then be up to the military authorities to prove that he is, in fact, a deserter. That is how the matter has been put to me, and I am advised accordingly. I am quite willing to look at the whole matter again. There is no desire on our part to call up a man wrongly for part-time service—and it only applies to part-time service—or to make him serve longer than he is entitled to. We shall see that the Clause is drafted to protect a man against the possibility which has been suggested in this Debate, but we must remember that we cannot have a Clause whereby men can evade service by making all sorts of appeals. The thing will have to be solved somehow, but we cannot have widespread evasion. However, the matter will be looked at to see that the position of the men is safeguarded.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry to persist in this matter, but I am encouraged to do so by the observations which have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary, because they are not entirely accurate, and I say that with all respect to the hon. Gentleman. I sympathise with him in having to deal with this question which to a great extent involves military law with which he may not be entirely familiar. I do not want to score points at his expense because of that, but if he will make inquiries from the proper military authorities, he will find that in the course of the war there were cases of trials by courts martial of men who were charged with being deserters or being absent without leave, who asserted that they had no liability for service under the 1939


National Service Act. I agree that under Subsection (3) of this Clause a notice served on a man is deemed to be enlistment in the Forces of the Crown. That is a further distinction from the Regular soldiers, but it would not be possible to charge a man with being a deserter unless he were called up for a particular date and failed to report. That is a further refinement and a distinction from the case of the Regular soldier. If he has been served wrongly with a notice for service, he cannot dispute it until it comes before a court martial. We have not put down this Amendment in order to provide machinery whereby people will evade their obligations. Indeed, I should like to see machinery for a speedy determination of the issue. I think some provision should be made other than trials by courts martial, which may involve a man in a long period of delay in finding the individual concerned, and perhaps he will lose his liberty and be under military arrest. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into this matter again and I am sure if he can provide a simpler procedure he will do so.

The Attorney-General: We will certainly look at this point, and we appreciate the spirit and purpose of this Amendment, but surely there must be some mistake. Either a man is liable to serve under the Act or he is not. If he is brought before a court martial, charged with desertion and he should not be so charged, he can bring an action for false imprisonment or take such other remedies as are available to him in our courts. There is no power to arrest a man, take him into military custody and bring him before a court martial if he is not liable for military service, and if he is liable for military service then the point made does not arise.

Mr. Bramall: How is the fact determined that a man is or is not liable?

The Attorney-General: I can suggest several ways. If he is not liable, there are various remedies on the Crown side of the High Courts of Justice which can be taken to prohibit a court martial. If those are not successful he can wait until the court martial is held, and then have the proceedings quashed by certoriari. There are ample remedies to meet the point made by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Stanley: I feel that the explanation given by the Attorney-General does ensure the necessity for the Government to look at this matter again. Apparently, if a man disputes his liability to call-up he must wait until a training notice is served upon him. Then, if he believes—we will assume, believes rightly—that he is not liable and refuses to obey that training notice, under Clause 6 (3), he is apprehended and court-martialled, and then, the Attorney-General says, it is perfectly simple—he can let himself be placed under close arrest for a considerable time, he can go through the court martial, and then he can have the proceedings quashed and go to the courts and get damages, and a good time will be had by all. Would it not be better to provide a rather simpler and more expeditious remedy than that, which would enable the man's contention to be decided in a court of summary jurisdiction before he had to undergo any of the trials which, according to the Attorney-General, are the only way in which he can eventually prove his exemption from this liability?

The Attorney-General: I should have mentioned one other remedy—the writ of habeas corpus. That had not occurred to me.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I want to repeat what I said before, that if the Amendment is withdrawn, we will undertake to look at it. We have no intention of putting the Service man at any great disadvantage in regard to his obligations to the State.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was going to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but as some other hon. Members rose to speak, I will give way if they wish to address the Committee. If they do not wish to do so, then I will say that I welcome what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. It is· a change from the existing low under the 1939 Act, but I am quite sure that if he can devise some machinery of that sort, it will be welcomed not only by the persons who may be affected by the machinery, but by many who have to operate the present machinery.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to ask Leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Brigadier Low: I would like to put to the Service Ministers certain questions on Subsection (2). There are certain objections to this Subsection which, I think, should receive an answer from the Government Front Bench, and since Ministers are in a very amenable frame of mind, I have no doubt they may be able to meet the objections or promise to meet them. First, the Subsection deals with what shall be treated as equivalent terms of whole-time and part-time service, and the Committee will see that the definition of the equivalents may substantially affect the liabilities of persons called up under the Bill. If that is so, should not the definition be incorporated in the Bill? If the definition has the effect of increasing or decreasing the liability of someone under the Bill, should not the definition be included in the Bill? I submit that the definition should be included in the Bill because it has an effect upon the extent of service of the people who are liable under the Measure.
The second point is that the terms of service, surely, should be the same for all three Services. Surely that stands to reason, because a man may be serving in any of the three Services, and the effect of the Clause should be general, and should not make him serve longer or do more periods of service because he is called into the Army rather than into the Navy or the R.A.F. That being so should not the Minister of Defence rather than the Service authorities make these regulations?
3.45 a.m.
My third point concerns the last four lines of the Subsection which lays down that not more than 15 days' training in any one year which have been carried out in an auxiliary force as a volunteer, shall count towards part-time service for which he is liable. Surely that inflicts a little hardship on a volunteer. If he is serving compulsorily he can count 21 days in any year. Why, if he volunteers, should he be allowed to count only 15 days? I might point out to the Government that in order to be efficient in the Territorial Army he has to do the equivalent of 22½ days in each year. Why should not he count 15 days towards his service? I do not understand that. Perhaps one of the Ministers will explain. It seems very odd that this Bill should penalise the volunteer, or rather, it seemed to be very odd until I heard the Minister of Defence earlier in the evening Then we had the Secretary of State for War to take my part. I wish

he were here now to do so again, but since the Minister of Defence is not here either, we have some reason to be interested in the observations that will be made in due course from the Front Bench. I put these points and would like some explanation; otherwise it seems that Subsection (2) is open to serious objections.

Mr. Pickthorn: I have a very small point which I think I can put very shortly. The point is the distinction between the words "will" and "shall." If the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General who, I think, has a copy of the Bill—the Attorney-General, I think, has not—will look at lines 38 and 45 of the Clause, he will see where the point arises. I do not ask him to give an immediate answer, because I am very sure he would be wrong if he did—it is the sort of thing that one always gets wrong at first blush—but I would ask him whether each of these "wills" ought not to be "shalls." If it were not out of Order, I would venture to make a bet on the second, and as regards the first, I am sure there is room for further consideration. The first "will" I think may be right, the second I am almost sure is wrong. I desire some assurance that this will be looked into before the Report stage.

Mr. Linstead: There are several questions I would like to put before we leave this Clause. The first question is this. As I understand it, there are two circumstances under which this comes into operation. One is where the break in service is in the interests of the man, and the other is where the break is because of the action of one or other of the Service Departments. The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that it is possible for somebody discharged from the R.A.F. to be required to finish his service in the Army. The Secretary of State for War has said that, if a man was not wanted, he would be discharged, and would be discharged finally. Who of the two Ministers has put the right interpretation on this Clause? Do they intend to move men about from one Service to another, or if a particular Service has finished with a man, is that the end of it? The second question is this. Is the Army to be the dumping ground for people who are not wanted in the Navy or the R.A.F.? I think that that point ought to be made quite clear. Is the Army to be the final


resort for people not wanted by the other two Services?

Mr. Charles Williams: There is a point on this Clause on which I seek some information. What is the position of a man who after 15 days goes sick and is ill for 18 or 20 days? How does this period count? The man is taken away from home, and I should like to know if that period of illness is counted toward service. I saw that recently there were representatives of all three Services in the Committee, but now there are representatives of only two. I mention that fact because this point is of interest to all of them. Do the regulations vary between the Services? We ought to get this clearly in our minds, I am doubtful about the position in each of the three Services, and I cannot see where this can be provided for in the Bill other than in this Clause if we are going to lay down a regulation about this 15 days. Let us suppose that a man is ill for more than that period. Does the man have to suffer the illness and lose the service as well? It would not be right for us to pass over this Clause until this matter is cleared up.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has put a question which should be answered. The hon. Gentleman is representative of a large number of people, and these are matters which concern our constituencies. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not interested, we are, because points such as those which have just been raised do affect our constituents.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The answer is that if a man is in a military hospital during the period of training, then that time must count in his favour. The second point was with regard to the Army being a dumping ground. I cannot answer that point. with regard to interrupted service; when it is obviously the man's fault he must not be allowed to creat a situation in which he escapes his liabilities. The Secretary for War gave an undertaking that the Forces would play fair in this matter, and said he would look at the Clause again. With that assurance I think we ought to get the Clause.

Mr. C. Williams: I have had only half an answer. I am sure the hon. Gentleman

wished to be helpful on this but the Clause says:
shall not permit more than 15 days' training in any year.
Supposing a man is admitted to hospital on the tenth day and remains there for ten days, that sees him through his 15th day and would bring him to the 20th day. Would that be counted for his service or not? That was the second part of my question.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.

Mr. C. Williams: What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by that? Surely the Government—

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not the Service Minister.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I think that one point should be made clear. It is that the Army is not a dumping ground for men who cannot get into the other Services. We hope there will be as much keenness to get into the Army as into the other Services. Speaking on behalf of the Navy, I must say that we do not consider the Army to be a dumping ground.

Mr. Linstead: Does that mean that it a man goes into the Navy, broadly speaking he stays there until he has finished his service? And is the same true of the Army and the Air Force? There is no suggestion, I hope, of passing on the unwanted man to the other services.

Mr. Dugdale: That is perfectly correct.

Brigadier Low: May I have an answer to the questions which I put? The Secretary of State for War is here now, and I am sure that one of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench can answer me. I think I had better repeat the questions so that the right hon. Gentleman can answer them. My first point was that in Subsection (2) at the beginning, there is talk of equivalent terms of service. But there is no definition of "equivalent" and such definition might substantially affect the liabilities of a person under the Act. My second question is this. Since there are three Services, the terms of service which are made by the three Service authorities may differ. Therefore


there may be created a different liability under this Subsection for someone who is called, say, into the Navy, from the liability for someone who is called into the Army or Air Force. Ought not the Minister of Defence, rather than the Service authorities, to study the terms? The third question was put specifically to the Secretary of State for War. Why is it that a volunteer is only allowed to count 15 days when a man who is serving compulsorily, part-time service under Subsection (3) of this Bill, is allowed to count 21 days? I suggest to the Committee that it is a pity, when the right hon. Gentleman is trying to encourage the enrolment of volunteers, that this Bill should, at various points, treat the volunteer more harshly than the man who is serving compulsorily.

4 a.m.

Mr. Bellenger: It is somewhat difficult for me to be fully seized, coming in at the last moment, of the detailed points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, but I will try to give him some satisfaction. The question about assessing service in Subsection (2) will be the subject of regulations. These have to be laid before Parliament. I take it, therefore, that opportunity will arise later on for discussions of these points in detail and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give him a fuller answer tonight.

Brigadier Low: I am not being discourteous. The Minister's right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was here and the two right hon. Gentlemen met, without discussing the points I have put. It would have been more courteous to me if they had discussed the points I put.

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows I am not discourteous and do not withhold information.
The second question raised is about regulations being different in the three Services. It is quite possible they would be, as each Service department will make its own regulations. They have to be worked out after the Bill is passed and will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament at a later date. The third question was on 15 days service. I think there is a good deal of misconception about the term, "volunteer." Under the Bill, individuals liable for compulsory service

can volunteer in certain reserves in order to escape a certain amount of full-time service. In doing that, they volunteer to undertake more liabilities than the reservist who having done his 12 months' service is put into one of the service reserves. It does not happen in the Army because in the main a man does 12 months and then goes into the Territorial 'Army. In the other two Services he can volunteer to go into the Naval Reserve or into the equivalent Reserve of the R.A.F. and undertake as a volunteer somewhat more onerous obligations than a reservist who goes into the Territorial Army. The reservist has 60 days' training normally spread over six years and cannot volunteer to do more than 15 days of that training in any one year. Otherwise, it is obvious he may easily do 30 days in the first year, and 30 days in the second, and do all his reserve training in two years. We want to spread it over six years and therefore limit the amount of annual training he can do in any one year. I cannot go any further tonight but will undertake to furnish further details to the hon. and gallant Gentleman at a later date.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: How can a Territorial, who does no more than 15 days' service in one year, qualify for proficiency pay?

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot answer that question at the moment. I must have notice of it. It is impossible for a Minister, even for the Secretary of State for War, to carry the answer to every technical question in his head. That is obviously a suitable subject for a Question to be put down.

Mr. Hollis: We are told that the different Service authorities have to make regulations. Does that mean that the treatment in the various Services is going to differ?

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The treatment in the Services must obviously be equivalent, otherwise one Service would be getting an advantage as against the others.

Mr. C. Williams: May I return to the point to which I nearly got an answer just now? The right hon. Gentleman told us that the service is to be spread over six years, and that the number of days is limited to 15 in any one year.


We have been told that if a man is admitted to a military hospital during his training that that time counts. I want to know what is the position if a man is in a military hospital for a longer period than the 15 days. Will the time spent in the hospital over that limit count, or how will the man stand? We should know the answer to this question before we pass this Clause, or we should at least have some assurance that it will be dealt with at a later stage of the Bill. We should be told that a man who is sick and who, as a result, is away longer from his employment, will not be penalised.

Mr. Bellenger: I shall be only too happy to look into the point. I think that if a man falls sick—and here I am speaking without notes—we should not want to keep him on indefinitely. After all, he may be sick for 12 months, and we should not want to keep him on full pay. I think that there will have to be some limit, otherwise a man might run over the whole of the 60 days. All these points have to be settled. It is unfair to throw out conundrums like this, because conundrums are not capable of quick answers. I will certainly look into this question and all the other complex matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Calling up for training during part-time service.)

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided always that in selecting the time and place of training the service authorities shall have due regard to the distance of the man's residence from the training place and the hours of work during which a man earns his livelihood.
This Amendment is self-explanatory, and as the Government are in an amiable mood I hope they will accept it. It seeks to ensure that the Service authorities should have regard to the convenience of the man who is called up for part-time training, that they should consider the distance which the man lives from the place of training, and the hours of work by which he gets his livelihood. I believe that it is the intention of the Service

authorities to pay regard to these matters, but it would be a safeguard to put a proviso of this sort into the Bill, as a constant reminder that the individual is entitled to consideration. It is possible, as the Bill is drafted, to call up a man for training, to direct him to attend a drill hall 15 miles away from his home, and to be there by 6 or 6.30 p.m., when he might not finish work until that time. The man gets only one month's compensation if, as a result of the inconvenience he causes to his employer, he is sacked from his job. I agree that there is no penalty that can be enforced against a sergeant-major who directs a man for training at an inconvenient time, but I believe that it is important to have something in the Bill to see that the' Service authorities should pay the utmost attention to the convenience of individuals who are called up. The sort of sergeant-major who puts a man on fatigues, who goes out of his way not to study his convenience, is not entirely dead.

Mr. John Dugdale: I see the desirability of the aim behind this Amendment, but it would be unworkable in practice. There must be a place at which it is necessary to group the people who are to be trained. It is very difficult to suit every man's convenience. In the Navy, training areas are very strictly limited. For instance, a man who lives in Portsmouth or Chatham can be trained in those areas, but it is difficult to arrange proper training near his home for a man who lives in Birmingham. We are doing our utmost to curtail the number of training areas, so that we can release them for other purposes. While we realise that it is desirable to give every help to a man if we can, it would be impossible to guarantee to do this in every case. We could not possibly include this proviso in the Bill.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Stanley: I am not quite certain what is meant by a training notice under this Clause. Does it cover every bit of training that the man has done during his six or seven years? Will they serve separate notices for every drill during the course of the year, or is training merely for the longer periods?

Mr. Dugdale: It only applies when the man is in training for the longer periods.

Mr. Stanley: How then is the man notified in regard to the shorter periods of training which he has undergone throughout the year, or are they left entirely to his own will? It raises a very important point in training, because, surely, the Service Departments must have in their minds the 60 days spread over six years, and the divisions between certain periods spent in camp and certain periods spent in week-end training and evening training. If there is no training notice in respect of the evening drill, would it not be possible for a man through voluntarily doing training in the evening, which obviously for him is the most convenient form of training, to be able to say, when the compulsory notice is served on him to go to a camp for a week or a fortnight, that by reason of the voluntary training which he has done, he has gone beyond the limit of the days on which he has to train and thereby can evade camp training?

Mr. Dugdale: I do not suggest for one moment that this will be an entirely haphazard arrangement. There will be a notice in the ordinary way and the man will be informed by his commanding officer or sergeant-major, and the commanding officer will see that the man has not more than his requisite training.

Mr. Stanley: Can the commanding officer send a man away if he has done all his drills?

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps I can try to put this matter in order. Obviously, the three Services will differ considerably. The Navy have ships and they have to send their men to sea. In that case they will want their men for longer periods than the Army when the men are engaged on anti-aircraft defence. It will he necessary to give the national service reservist and the employer full notice that the man is going to be taken away from work to go into camp for the annual 30 days' training. The notice formally served on the man will tell him that he will be required to report at a certain date, at a certain time and at a certain place. He then comes off his employer's pay roll and goes on to the Service pay roll. In the case of the Army, where we shall endeavour to commute as much as possible of the time in evening training, it will not be possible to serve notices for that kind of training because the man will

not be taken away from his work and he will be able to do that training in his spare time.
The right non. Gentleman has sufficient knowledge of the Army to know how orders are issued to a man to turn up on parade. I am sure in the Territorial unit, where a reservist will be serving, a notice will be placed on the notice board and he will be warned of a parade on a certain date. For example, if he tells his commanding officer that it would be more convenient for him to attend a drill on Thursday night instead of Friday, I am sure, if at all possible, that will be arranged. That procedure is quite understandable by all hon. Gentleman in this Committee who have had experience of Army life. I do not think that there will be all these complications which the right hon. Gentleman imagines. This thing will work as smoothly as it has worked in the Territorial Army for 40 years when the volunteers presented themselves for drill.

Mr. Byers: I think we have raised a very important point here.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Touche): The point goes really beyond the Amendment and already the Debate has gone wide enough. I think the matter could be raised on the Motion that the Clause stand part.

Mr. Byers: With all respect to you, Mr. Touche, I am perfectly prepared to raise it again on the Motion that the Clause stand part, but I feel that we can dispose of it on the Amendment which I have moved.

Mr. C. Williams: I only want to refer to one aspect of this Amendment. We know what the Navy and the Army are going to do, but we have not the slightest idea what the Royal Air Force are going to do and it is really very wrong that, throughout the whole of this important Debate, no mention should be made of the proposals in regard to the Air Force, which is a most important Service. Now that we have the Minister of Defence back with us again, his usual cheerful self, perhaps he will tell us what the Air Force intends to do. It is really not right that that Service should be pushed away into a corner by the Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. This is a very modern Service, and we want to know


something more about it in relation to this Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chetwynd: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "time," to insert:
not less than fourteen days.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent any undue hardship being caused to the man called up for training assuming that the man has to go away from home, for a week, 14 days, or even 21 days. The Clause as it stands lays down that the Service Departments give a man 30 days' notice that he is to be called up and he is to report at a certain place, at a certain time, on a certain date, but if unforeseen circumstances arise the notice can be cancelled by giving one day's notice. In my opinion that is likely to cause great hardship to a man and great hardship to his employer and would only encourage certain slackness in the Departments. To give one example, a man who is called up on 1st August may have to postpone his holidays and he may have to get his children away somewhere. Then his wife might be afraid to live by herself, as many wives are, and he may have to arrange for his mother-in-law to coma and stay with her. On the other hand, he may have to arrange for his wife to go and stay with his mother-in-law. Assuming, therefore, that the Service Departments send a notice and then cancel it at one day's notice, there may be hardship caused when the man comes back and finds his mother-in-law in the house with his wife, and has to stay there as well. On the other hand, if his wife has gone away to the mother-in-law, he will have to stay at home by himself until she comes back. It is a very serious matter.
Let us assume, for instance, that he has made arrangements with his employer that he is going to be away for a fortnight. The employer arranges for a man to take his place, and then, the day before this happens, the notice is cancelled, and the whole arrangement at the works is upset. [Laughter.] I cannot see why this is causing amusement. It is a very serious point. If the Service chiefs think they can get away with one day's notice, if the people who are arranging the camps think that they have another week or fortnight and all they need to do is to send a notice on the last day that they

cannot make the arrangements, it will not be fair on the man or his wife or his mother-in-law or his employer. In my opinion, we should not tolerate this state of affairs. I think that, by making a Service Department give 14 days' notice of a change in plans, it will obviate hardship and make the Service Departments efficient, and prevent them from pushing the man around.

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend has presented the Committee with a matter of substance. What he says, in effect, is that if the Service authority issue a 30 days' notice ordering the man to be at a certain place at a certain date and time, they should not unreasonably cancel that notice at the last moment. I quite agree with him, and I can assure him and the Committee that the Service Departments will not deal with men in this fashion. What would happen if they did? I am afraid that this Bill, even though it were passed, would not work. The Service Departments will issue the 30 days' notice because they want the man to come for training at a certain place, date and time, and it will only be through matters over which they have no control—perhaps transport arrangements, or an outbreak of infections disease, or flooding, or something of that sort which is beyond their control—that it will be necessary to cancel the notice. The notice will be cancelled only if the date of joining is changed, because the time and the place can be altered without cancellation of the notice. The Department, once the notice is cancelled, will serve another 30 days' notice, so that the national service reservist will have ample warning of where and when he has to report. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment. I see his point and I assure him that the Service authorities are not going to act in the unconscionable manner which he rather suggested might happen.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the hon. Member who moved this Amendment in a very humorous speech has raised a point of considerable substance and that the Committee will see that, although 30 days' notice is provided in the case of the original notice, the right hon. Gentleman is not providing that any notice should be given in the case of the supplementary notice, which is a different point from the cancellation.

Mr. Bellenger: Another notice will be necessary if the first notice is cancelled and another notice has to be served giving 30 days' clear notice of the instruction to report, but not if the time and place is altered—only if the date of joining is altered by cancellation of the original notice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry, but I do not think this Clause is very clearly drafted if that is its purport. There is no provision here for the giving of 30 days' notice in the supplementary notice. It says supplementary notices can be served following training notice by altering the time and place at which the person is required to present himself. There might be cases for saying that you cannot be expected to give notice of cancellation, but if you cancel and then say to a man, "You must come" he ought to have at least 14 days' notice in every case. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point. It is a distinct point from having the right to cancel at short notice because of a breakdown here or there. Fourteen days' notice is the least that ought to be given to a man after cancellation. He has arrangements to make for accommodation, for holidays, and for things of that sort and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman could have said that in every case of a supplementary notice which varies the original notice there should be 14 days. I would ask him to consider that point.

Mr. Bellenger: I think it is clear from this Clause that if the original notice is cancelled a new notice has to be served and the new notice must be 30 days in advance of the joining date. Any of the notices must have 30 days attached to it and if one is cancelled, a new one is issued. It is not such a great hardship and the reason is, obviously, to avoid hardship which the hon. Member is talking about. It is no great hardship on a man to switch him about in the time of joining. For example, it may be necessary to say that, instead of reporting at Euston at 10 o'clock to catch the 10 o'clock train, a man should report at 10.30. That is no hardship to him. He does not lose a day's pay over it or have the trouble the hon. Member is talking about. It is also no great trouble if he is told that, instead of reporting at Gravesend he must report

at Chatham. It is a hardship if the notice telling him to report on a certain date is cancelled and, therefore, it is obvious that once the notice is served cancelling his reporting date, a new one must be served.

Mr. Nally: I am not quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman has clearly recognised the point made by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment. The point surely is—I may be wrong—that as the Subsection now stands it is left entirely to the Service authorities to decide when a cancellation notice shall go out. That might very well mean that a man would receive a notice telling him to report on such-and-such a date—let us say, on a Tuesday—in order to start duty. On the Monday evening, by the last post, he receives a notice cancelling the previous notice. This man would have made all arrangements to leave, and it would seem to be rather a serious matter, and it is not right for the Minister to talk of fire and flood and other acts of God affecting an otherwise efficient authority. Service authorities have been known to make administrative mistakes. Young ladies in Whitehall sometimes get their shorthand notes wrong, and the wrong people have been called up at the wrong time. The mistake might be discovered, and immediately a notice is sent out cancelling the previous notice after the fellow has made all preparations. It might well be that a man has finished work in the normal way on a Friday evening, if he works in a factory where the five-day week operates, ready to report on the following Monday. But he is then told to report on the Tuesday. He forfeits one day's pay, and he has no recompense, not even an apology from the War Office whose error has been responsible for his inconvenience and pecuniary loss. Unless we get a much better and more satisfactory assurance, we must press this Amendment. In time of war, we assume that the Service Department is right, but, in time of peace, we are not entitled to think so. I hope that my hon. Friend will press this.

Mr. H. Strauss: Two questions are involved in this, and I agree with the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat that a late cancellation can cause much hardship. Whether the interval of time mentioned in the Amendment is correct, or whether it should be a reasonable time, is a matter for consideration. But I would


pass to the other matter where the Secretary of State for War, although putting forward what appeared to be reasonable if the Clause said what he thought it said, was assuming that the supplementary notice meant what he said it meant. The notice here referred to could only be a notice varying the training notice by prescribing a different place or time. It does riot seem clear that time must mean hour. If the learned Attorney-General has looked up precedents and says that he is quite confident about it, I will say no more. But there appears to be no such limitation and this whole Subsection could be interpreted as saying that the Service authority could completely change its mind about the time, using "time" in the widest sense. I hope that more attention will be given to that point, in addition to that raised by the last speaker and the mover of the Amendment, unless as is possible the right hon. and learned Attorney-General can satisfy us more fully tonight.

Mr. Chetwynd: I fully realise the difficulties of this position. If my right hon. Friend can give an assurance that he will look at this matter between now and a later stage, to see if the draftsmen can draft some words to meet the point of hardship, without detracting from the efficiency of the services, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot give any undertaking that I will look at this matter with a view to incorporating something similar to the suggestion in my hon. Friend's Amendment. I am prepared to look at any case where there is a possibility that hon. Members may fail to understand it, or there may be incomplete understanding by an hon. Member, and to try to show that any case they have submitted has been fully covered. I certainly will give hon. Members an undertaking to look at this matter again.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment in my name has been included in this discussion, or is it about to be called?

The Temporary Chairman: We are discussing the Amendment to line 24, and the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment is included in the discussion.

Mr. Byers: May I also ask whether the Amendment in my name to give 21 days' notice on a supplementary notice is also included?

The Temporary Chairman: That Amendment is also included in the discussion.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I should like a further explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. He stated that the supplementary notice would imply a further 30 days' notice. Is that what he intended to say? A supplementary notice can take effect on the following day. If that is so, I consider it utterly wrong. That is why I have proposed this Amendment which would give 14 days notice to the man on top of the supplementary notice. He gets 30 days on the original notice; I then suggest that he needs 14 days' supplementary notice. I agree that 21 days is not sufficient notice. I have sometimes as a yeomanry officer had to postpone camps for a fortnight because of bad weather. Therefore I think it would be wrong to make the period more than 14 days. It would make it impossible to have a temporary postponement of a camp. Therefore I suggest that 14 days is the minimum which should be allowed.

4.45 a.m.

The Attorney-General: I think I can assist the Committee on this. I can advise the Committee with complete confidence that a supplementary notice, which can only vary the training notice, cannot alter the date on which a man has to report for duty. All the notice says is that you may report at half-past two instead of half-past ten, or at Waterloo instead of Euston. That will impose no real hardship on a man whose arrangements are changed and there is therefore no reason why additional notice should be given. If what is intended to be done is to tell him, you are not to report on the day on the training notice, it would impose cancellation of the original notice and the serving of a new notice.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I hope the Committee will not be too ready to part with this point. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for clearing up a matter about the supplementary notice but the Secretary of State has made no promise to reconsider the wording of this


Clause and it is absolutely clear in the wording, that the Service authority can cancel a training notice at the very last moment.

The Attorney-General: That is a different point from the one I explained.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Yes, but it is the point of the Amendment. If a training notice is given to a man to report on 1st September, he will have made arrangements with his employer on 1st August, assuming he has, received his notice 30 days before. Then he may receive a cancellation notice on 30th August. The Amendment is designed to prevent any hardship owing to his being prejudiced with his employer or otherwise.

Mr. Stanley: I think the difficulty is that we are discussing two Amendments with wholly different purposes and two wholly different cases at the same time. With regard to the second Amendment which deals with supplementary training notices, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement has made a great difference to my point of view. In order to reinforce his statement it may be necessary later to insert "time of day" instead of time. So far as I am concerned, this disposes of that part of the case. There is another important point, although I think the Amendment proposed is inappropriate to the problem it is meant to cover. In the case of cancellation, it is impossible to impose on the authority 14 days' notice before cancellation. The emergency may arise at the last moment. No one can seriously say that, an emergency having arisen on Thursday, when the camp is starting on Friday, you may cancel on 14 days' notice. What I think the supporters of the Amendment are really getting at is the hardship and possible loss caused to people by a sudden cancellation of a notice and they are trying to get from the authorities some statement on whether it could not be possible in cases of that kind to give some compensation to people who have suffered from a sudden cancellation. I would not press the Amendment as it stands, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot consider the real point behind it, and whether something cannot be done, to enable compensation to be paid in cases where hardship is caused by sudden cancellation of training notices.

Mr. Bellenger: That may well be under military administration, but I still do not think it necessary to alter the Clause to ensure that compensation should be paid. I am prepared to look at the point and see whether I can meet the right hon. Gentleman on the question of compensation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out Subsection (3).
This Amendment has been put down in order to obtain an explanation. It raises a question of some substance. We are considering what penalties should be imposed on a person who fails to comply with a training notice. The first question which arises is whether the penalty is to be the same in each auxiliary force. This Subsection is very vague. It merely says:
A person who fails to comply with a training notice shall be liable to be apprehended and punished in the same manner as a person belonging to an auxiliary force failing to appear when called into actual or permanent service or on embodiment.
What that means is that if a man is in the Territorial Army, or in the Territorial Reserve, he will be charged or tried as a deserter, and will be liable to two years' imprisonment. The same will, apparently, be the case if he goes into the Royal Naval Special Reserve. I do not know what the penalties are for desertion under the Naval Discipline Act, but in the case of the Army the penalties are fairly substantial. If one compares these with the similar provisions in the Territorial and Reserves Act of row, one finds that the liability for failing to attend annual training is the payment of a fine of There may be a case for a higher penalty for the national serviceman than for the Territorial for failing to comply with his voluntary undertaking.
I suggest that a great deal must depend on the interpretation of the words "training notice." There is no definition of these words in the Bill. We have had a good deal of discussion in the course of today and yesterday on their precise significance, but I am still not clear what they are intended to mean. The Secretary of State for War indicated that training notices would only be served in relation to annual camps, and not for attendance at drills. That is so far as the Army is concerned, and I suppose that the same procedure applies to the Navy. If that is so, there


should be a definition in the Bill of a training notice, limiting it to that effect. It may be a matter of amicable arrangement to ensure the attendance of the national service man for his hourly periods of training, but surely some sanction will be imposed to ensure that the necessary drills are attended by him as by the Territorial. I can see no provision in the Bill which will enforce the attendance of the national service man. If a training notice is served on him what machinery will enable him to be punished if he abstains from attending? The Committee ought to know what penalty there will be on the man who fails to comply with a training notice to attend an annual camp. We ought to be assured that the penalty for not attending training will be the same in each of the three Auxiliary Services.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: If this Subsection were left out it would mean that the man would be free to ignore a training notice, and would then be subject to only a small penalty, which has normally been imposed only on the volunteer member of an Auxiliary force. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will agree that a fine is not sufficient penalty, or could be regarded as a sufficient deterrent in the case of a man who has to serve under a compulsory engagement. The provisions of the Subsection are designed to enable such a man to be dealt with as an absentee, or a deserter. The man who has served with the Colours for 12 months will know what are the rules and practices of Army discipline. The hon. and learned Member referred to the man who is subject to compulsory reserve training, but who wishes to commute his call-up for a period of training by putting in alternative drills, or week end courses, by arrangement with his unit. I should have thought that the best deterrent, in the case of the man who did not avail himself of the weekend he had arranged with his unit, would be the suspension of the arrangement. There would, therefore, be rare cases of that kind, and that man would be subject for call-up for that period of training which he had failed to commute as he had agreed to do.

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Byers: I do not think we can leave the matter there, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) pointed out, I do not think the Minister yet appreciates

that there appear to be two different types of training notices—that for the annual camp and that for the man to turn out at the drill hall or week-end camp.

Mr. Bellenger: I am surprised that an hon. Gentleman like the hon. Member for Northern Dorset who has held the rank of lieut.-colonel in the Army does not know how the men are warned to attend a parade for an evening drill or a week-end camp.

Mr. Stanley: It is not drill, it is training.

Mr. Bellenger: Well, training then. We are splitting hairs over words. A notice to attend evening drill or week-end camp or week-end training, whichever hon. Members prefer to call it, is not necessary. I am sure that during his Army career the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) instructed his n.c.o.s. or warrant officers to warn the men to attend for training and he knows the procedure.

Mr. Byers: I am surprised at this insubordination on the part of a relatively junior officer. I am pointing out that as the Bill stands, it is not clear that the training notice refers only to the annual camp. If it is not clear it should be made clear. If the Government want to define the different types of notices, then they should be so defined in the Bill. If it is a parade notice, call it a parade notice and put it in the Bill. It seems perfectly absurd to think that the words "training notice" in the Bill should mean anything else than for a man to come along for training purposes. I ask the Minister of Defence to treat this matter seriously, because it is going to cause a great deal of inconvenience and ambiguity, and we have a chance now of putting the thing right. This is the Committee stage of this Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think the more advanced the time becomes, the more confused we get over this, and what was said just recently by my right hon. Friend has not made it any plainer. I understood him to say in the course of his speech that a training notice was not necessary at all. What is puzzling me is, if a training notice is not necessary, how anyone who does not comply with such a notice can have all these penalties imposed upon him. I do not think that Bills of this kind ought to be drafted in this way. Penalties should not be im-


posed upon people for failing to obey something which is not really necessary. My right hon. Friend explained how the notice was given and how it told reservists to attend parades and he then went on to say in emphatic language that no training notice was necessary. We are proposing to impose all sorts of penalties upon people who are supposed to be deserters, for failing to obey a notice which we are told is riot necessary. I think the Government should not use language of that sort, but should decide whether the training notice is or is not necessary.

Mr. Stanley: We understood from the Secretary of State for War that a training notice was only to be issued in the case of a long term camp, and that, therefore, Subsection (3) of this Clause would only apply in that case. We are told that other forms of training for which a man is required like a week-end camp do not need a training notice but that the man will be notified through the usual channels. What is the sanction behind the notification for the man who tails to attend for the drill or week-end camp? It is clearly not sanctioned in Subsection (3). Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the sanction is?

Mr. Bellenger: I think it is quite obvious. A reservist is liable for 60 training days over six years. He has to do that. He can be served with a training notice, but only to go to a long period camp, and if he fails to obey that, he will be treated in the same way as a man who fails to obey a notice under the Act from the Minister of National Service—he will 'be treated as a deserter. The man who does not attend a week-end camp or weekly drill, will not get the credit for those days off the 60 days' training which he must do. There is no other penalty, except that he has not carried out his undertaking to compute a certain number of days in that way. He has still to do his drills to make up the period.

Mr. Linstead: I ask the Secretary of State to look at this matter through the eyes of the man who is receiving the notice. He may receive two different types of notice, one calling him for his camp and another calling him to a drill. That will not be a training notice but a notice to parades or week-end drills. How is the man to know that the second type of notice

is not a training notice rendering him liable to heavy penalties if he disobeys it? They are both notices and so far as the Reservist himself is concerned. I do not know how he is to differentiate between them.

Mr. Nally: It is absolutely necessary to define what a training notice is. No matter what definition we may have from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War—there are times when his definitions lack a certain clarity which might be helpful to us—those definitions are not in the Bill, and I do not really know what precisely is a training notice within the meaning of this Subsection. It will be observed that the Subsection refers to a person who fails to comply with a training notice, and then makes threats. The person who fails to comply is entitled to know quite clearly what he is not complying with, and unless we state precisely in the Subsection what is the thing with which he is not complying, there will be trouble. Is it a man coming to the door, a registered letter, a postcard, or a telephone call? I hope my right hon. Friend will give us more satisfaction than he has done hitherto on this rather shabby Subsection of this rather shabby Clause.

Brigadier Low: I want to put a simple question. A man in his seventh year who has passed his last camp, has still eight days' training to do to make up his total of 60. The only way he can do those eight days is in hourly periods of instruction. If he does not do them, what is the sanction to make him do them?

Mr. Bellenger: We shall have taken steps in the Service Ministry to see that he did it before that time. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to put all these hypothetical questions, I think my hon. Friends must at least assume that the Service Ministries will see that he will do his service or receive notice to do it in proper time before his seventh year is reached.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement just now which has really altered the understanding that I had of this Bill. I understood that a lot of these reservists were to be employed in anti-aircraft work, doing their training at weekends and in hourly periods in the evenings. - Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the only compulsory training the reservists will do will be in attending an annual


camp, and that the rest of the year it is entirely optional for them to attend at weekends and in the evenings as they choose? If that be so, I suggest that there can be no harm done in defining the words "training notice," and that this Bill could go much further in specifying what was meant by part-time service. I suggest we cannot leave it in this vague state of creating a criminal offence with a very heavy penalty without a definition of what is a training notice. Although the Minister of Defence may not be able to deal with this now, I suggest that he really ought to undertake to give this further consideration.

Mr. Alexander: I think the position under the Bill is as I put it in my first answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there is no doubt with regard to the man who fails to turn up in response to the call-up notice for embodied training. There is no doubt also that, where a man is commuting his liability to call-up for a period of camp training by taking weekends or evening training, the only method by which we could proceed against him would be that if he did not complete his engagements for that scattered training, he would be liable to be called up and if he did not then respond proceeded against. However, in view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I will have the legal position examined and see if any further definition is necessary and possible in order to make the position clear.

Colonel Wigg: I should like to plead with the Secretary of State for War that in any arrangements he makes in the future for delivering training notices, there will be a slight improvement on the prewar practice. Then in the Supplementary Reserve the commanding officer was responsible for issuing to each officer, warrant officer and N.C.O. a notice on Army form E654 to attend the annual training, and these notices had to be sent 14 days before the date of attendance. In addition to that, the commanding officer was responsible for sending out notices to the constabulary throughout Great Britain with the request that they would fix the notices on to the church doors, and the fact that the individual did not receive the Army form and the fact that it was put on the church doors was sufficient evidence for the man who failed to attend to be convicted on a charge of

desertion. That is a very serious matter, and if one looks at Clause 6 in conjunction with the First Schedule, one finds that if we pass this Clause without looking at it very carefully, the Service. Department will then have power to define by regulation what Constitutes a day's absence and subsequently to declare a man a deserter, certainly for any period he is so absent, to be deducted from the 12 months' training. I hope the Minister of Defence will ensure that the Service Departments do see that the matter of serving training notices is improved. I want to draw attention to the practice in the Territorial Army of publishing a Part I order at the conclusion of camp training, from which half the names were missed out, and on which there was the information that the man should attend on a particular date. I hope that training notices will not be served by the Service authorities, but through the machinery of the Ministry of Labour; that they will be delivered by registered post in the first instance, and that a man shall not be placed in the position of having to prove that he did not receive a notice which, in fact, might not have been posted.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Paget: I am horrified by the information that there is to be no sanction of any sort with regard to attendance at parades and training. You really cannot run training for an Army in this slack, happy-go-lucky way. If a course of training is to be of any use it must have some consequences attached to it. Otherwise, who is to see that a man turns up at any particular parade or on any particular weekend? Or is it suggested that the chap who has had lesson No. 1 will only turn up when it gets to lesson No. 6, and that another chap who has had lessons No. 3 and No. 4, will miss lesson No. 5? I ask the Defence Minister to take this matter seriously. We are making provision for the safety of the country. This is not the way to treat this sort of matter. It is an appalling waste of instructors' time. Rather than have parades in that sort of way do not have them at all. I seriously urge the Ministers to think again on this matter and say that the people who do these things do go through the proper course, and that there can be proper training for those concerned, and an assurance that the people do turn up.

The Attorney-General: We will certainly look into this Clause to have these points made clear. We will see that the training notices are certified as notices which contemplate some period, and not merely an hour's drill. It is only on this form of notice that these substantial penalties for desertion arise. The existing position is not the same "Fred Karno" position which my hon. Friend suggests. When a man does not turn up when he has been ordered so to do, there is a penalty. It is a small sum—about £5 I think. The failure to turn up at a drill might involve a breach of military law, but, as I have said, we will look into this Clause and try to satisfy the most careful minds on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Stanley: This is a most important matter. We have had a categorical statement from the Secretary of State for War, and I think that the Minister of Defence made a statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said he did not know.] The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I pointed out that, if a man did not keep his engagement, he was liable for call-up for embodied service, and that if he did not comply, he would be treated as a deserter from camp training. I have since said that I would see if the Clause could be put in order.

Mr. Stanley: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "putting the Clause in order"? At least we should learn from the Government whether they want a sanction. There may be a difference of opinion on this matter, but it is a matter of policy, and I ask the Government whether they want a sanction or not. For the purpose of making it clear, I ask, Is there a sanction behind the drill or is there no such sanction? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question.

Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman has had experience of the War Office, and he knows perfectly well that in a matter of this kind there is bound to be a sanction in order to enforce it. I have said that my reading of the Clause is that if a man is commuting his liability for compulsory service in reserve training, and giving up his evenings or Saturdays to this, and he does not turn up, he is then liable to be called up formally for longer periods of training. He would be liable to sanctions if he did not turn up

then. I said that I would consider the Clause, and examine it so that it might be made to work properly. The right hon. Gentleman will understand me when I say quite categorically that, of course, there must be a sanction to see that what is required of the men is carried out.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I think it would be worth while if the Government were to look at this matter in its entirety, and not simply in relation to the question of a training notice as meaning one thing alone. This notice may be of two kinds. Indeed, it may be of three kinds. It may have relation to a camp period—a period of continuous training. A second kind of notice may have relation to a sequence of training. If there is to be a sequence of training for artillery, for instance, and if those who are to follow that sequence are to be members of a gun team, and drill together, there must be some sanction to see that they do it together. That also has to be considered.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I want to raise a question on a point mentioned by the Attorney-General. He said that these people might be under military law. That is one of the major points raised by this whole Clause. What law are these people going to be under, if any; and what is the compulsion to be put upon them to carry out the drills which, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said, are run in sequence and must have some order? Unless we get a Ruling from the Government tonight, many of us will be forced to divide against this.

Mr. H. Strauss: What is extraordinary about this discussion tonight is the attitude of the Secretary of State for War. There are two main doctrines which he seems to hold. The first is that it does not matter what the words in a Clause are because he assures us of the very worthy action which the Service authority will take whatever they are. The second is that, this being the Committee stage, hon. Members are not entitled to know what anything means. To these two doctrines is added the attitude of astonishment. We put to him some perfectly obvious Committee point, such as all Ministers in charge of a Bill in previous Governments came into the Chamber prepared to answer. When we do such a thing, he declares, indignantly, whether to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, or to those of his hon. Friends


who raise points, "That is a hypothetical question." Why should it not be? Since when has it not been any part of the duty of a Minister to know what his proposals are? Since when has it been no part of a Minister's duties to know his own Bill?
5.30 a.m.
It is really the most fantastic argument this Committee has ever heard from right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. I believe that is the view of Members in every quarter. The matters raised in the Bill, controversial as they are, are of enormous importance to the ordinary man and there is no reason why the Bill should not be made quite plain to the ordinary man. Not only does the Bill not do that, hut, when Members attempt to find out from Ministers what it means, the Ministers are unable to answer or give contradictory answers. They not only keep us up all night in order to display their complete and fatuous incompetence, but they revel in their display.

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the Clause under discussion at the moment—the alleged incompetence of the Government?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is not out of Order.

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry I did not make myself sufficiently clear to the hon. Member who has asked what he called a point of Order, but I credited him apparently with too much intelligence at this late hour. Unless the Government give some explanation of this Subsection I hope a Motion will be moved to report Progress. The way the Government are behaving seems to me really an insult to this Committee. Even if the training notice were adequately defined, there is no reason why in this penalty Subsection now before us, we should legislate by reference. There is no reason why conscripts—though we are not allowed to call them conscripts—should not be able to look at the penalty Clause and see what it is, without reference to any other Act of Parliament whatsoever. I see surprisingly that that point has penetrated the intelligence of the hon. Member who has been interrupting. I am entirely undisturbed by the jeers of hon. Members. If they, like sheep, tolerate the incompetence of their Front Bench, they will tolerate anything. I resume my seat in the confident hope that some-

body will move a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do this as an act of mercy. It is the only way I cart see of putting a number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite out of their misery, not, unfortunately, permanently, but, at any rate, for a few hours. I think anyone who has listened to the Debate on this important Clause will have come to the conclusion that a matter of such importance and, at the same time, so complicated is one that should be discussed at a more reasonable hour of the day. The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) dissents. To him, day is as night, and night is as day. He finds no difference between right and left, black or white, but for the rest of us, we do find, on the whole, that complicated questions are more easily discussed and understood in normal working hours, than at six o'clock in the morning.
It is appropriate on this Clause to ask the right hon. Gentleman his intentions. We are dealing with the possibility of serving supplementary notices, which vary or alter places or time. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will serve a supplementary notice which will alter the place in the Bill he desired to reach, and the time he proposed to set? This is now Clause 6, and between Clause 6 and Clause 19 lie a variety of problems, just as important, and even more difficult than those we have been discussing. They will give rise to just as many hypothetical questions, to which the Secretary of State will object, just as many legal points on which the Attorney-General will differ with the Secretary of State, and just as many points of interest on which the Solicitor-General will be seen in all his glory. I am sorry to see such a splendid appearance reduced apparently to what appears to be the role of a mere messenger. I cannot believe it can really be contemplated that we should discuss another 13 Clauses, each of which has a vital importance for the men to whom this Bill will apply. I cannot believe it is intended that we should discuss these Clauses between now and when the House has to adjourn at 11 o'clock Is it not much better for the legal controversy now being carried on between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General on the Front Bench


in publico to be postponed to the quiet of their study, where there will be nothing to disturb them—apparently nothing does disturb them—or at least to a place where any obvious dissent by the Solicitor-General to the legal opinions of his superior would not be displayed to the gaze of laymen on both sides of the Committee? It really does seem, for the sake of the Government Front Bench, and for the convenience of Members on both sides, and for the wellbeing of those to whom this Bill is to apply in the most serious time of their lives, that it would be well that this Motion should be accepted.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to say a word in support of this Motion. I do not think it is necessary for the Motion to be supported by a quite unreasonable attack upon Ministers on the Front Bench, but I do think that if this fundamental change is to be made in our Constitution, it should be made not light mindedly, but seriously, with proper forethought, and with dignity. The proceedings of this Committee, during the last half an hour, or hour, have not been consonant with the atmosphere in which we should make a fundamental change in the law of this country. After all, what is the hurry? We are not at war. We are not waiting for these men. The Bill, when it becomes law, does not operate until 1949. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have said all this."]. I daresay, but I am saying it again. The discussion has shown either that the Bill has not been drafted with the care which ought to have been bestowed on it, or that there is not sufficient understanding, by Members in all parts of the Committee, of the implications of the machinery involved to enable us to discuss it at this hour of the morning, in this kind of atmosphere, and in this kind of spirit. Let us take our time. If we have to do the job at all, let us do it properly.

Major Legge Bourke: I agree with much of what the hon. Memfor Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has just said, and I would remind the Committee that as we are celebrating V-E Day the remarks which he has just made are even more to the point.

Mr. Alexander: I do not myself very much appreciate the atmosphere in which we have been working during the past half-an-hour. Everybody knows that this

Bill is of great importance, that it' affects the lives of a large number of our fellow citizens in a very intimate and particular way. The Government want to see the Bill carried through in the proper atmosphere. When I am asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) what is the hurry, I can tell him that the Government do not want especially to rush the Bill through as a Bill, but we must see that it gets on to the Statute Book this Session in order that we may give proper notice to educational institutions, industry, and all those who have to make plans ahead. If the Bill is to get through another place, and receive the Royal Assent, it must, with the Government's other Measures, be put through according to programme. More than half-an-hour ago, I promised that I would have the Clause closely examined to see that the matter was put in the plainest terms. I gave a categorical assurance that if there was any breach by a man who was commuting his call-up training we must see that we have sanctions which we can apply against him. I cannot accept the Motion.

Mr. Hollis: We are being asked to legislate by reference, and I confess that there is no one in the Committee, certainly not on the Treasury Bench, who knows, with accuracy and exactitude, what is the legislation to which we have to refer. Is it not, therefore, a great insult to the people of this country that we should legislate in these circumstances?

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Byers: Are we not entitled to ask the Minister of Defence what his intentions are if the Government propose to refuse to agree to the Motion? Can he give us some indication of the length of time it is intended that we should go on? I cannot accept the excuses which he has put forward, because I cannot believe that he will continue the Committee in session until 2.30 p.m. in order to get the Committee stage as far advanced as he possibly can. Surely, he is not going to suggest that Members who have sat in this Chamber working hard on these difficult and complicated points should be asked to go on and consider these things for another six hours. Could we not have some indication of the intention of the Government in this matter?

Mr. Pickthorn: I really must ask the Treasury Bench to consider whether it is


consistent with their own dignity to go on in the situation in which we now are. There are some here now—and I say this by no means criticising or reflecting on them because that would be an impertinence in my mouth—who have not been present here continuously, and there have been two or three speakers who have talked about the bad atmosphere of the last half hour. I do not understand what they mean by that; it is not for me to give certificates of behaviour on the Committee, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) rather rebuked speakers on this side of the House for having criticised the Treasury Bench and he then proceeded himself, by implication, to criticise the Committee as a whole. Some of us have been working for the last eight or nine hours continuously, and it is easier to get the impression of a bad atmosphere, as it were, by Members who only come in now and then.
If there is a bad atmosphere, I am sure that the Minister of Defence would not, unless he felt it absolutely imposed upon him by party considerations, wish this Committee to continue in its present tired state to deal with these matters now before it, for certainly, after the long period of consideration, the Committee is not in a condition to give full consideration to the important questions which have to come. I am sure there is nobody here who could deny the truth of that statement.
Secondly, I will put this to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Do they really think that they themselves have displayed any kind of agreement during the last half hour about this Clause, and particularly this Subsection? It is perfectly plain I think that the Secretary of State is the worst in this respect. Not only did he dismiss questions raised on the Committee stage as being hypothetical—and anyone who has sat in this House for six weeks knows that that is what a Committee stage is for—but he also said if we wanted the information for which we were asking, we should put down a Question on the Order Paper, and anybody who has been in this House for only 48 hours knows that Question time is the only time in this House when a hypothetical question is out of order and is not answered. The explanation of the law has been the worst I have known, and the Attorney-General has been most

disquieting in what he has said. He has swaggered into the thing with a sort of cold, free and easy insolence, and he has told us that there may be this or that penalty and this or that civil remedy, and then a few minutes later he interrupts to say that he had forgotten all about habeas corpus; never at any time telling the Committee what really was the state of the law and what the law would be if this Subsection passed. There was no clarification of the law from him at all. As far as any indication was given, it was that persons contravening the proposed Subsections might suffer from extreme penalties inflicted by courts-martial and that there might be civil remedies for wrongful arrest or there might not be.

Mr. Wyatt: Has this anything to do with the Motion to report Progress?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think the hon. Gentleman has got rather wide of the mark. The Motion we are discussing is to report progress and the hon. Member seems to be discussing the Clause.

Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, Mr. Beaumont, I am not discussing the Clause, but I am giving my opinion why I think that the Committee in its present condition cannot continue to consider these important Amendments which follow. The reason why I do not think that this Committee can continue is that the persons authorised to explain and guide the Committee on this matter have amply demonstrated in the last 40 minutes that they do not agree with each other. I know it is very difficult to keep all the arguments that were used at one's finger tips. I have not any notes and I cannot recollect everything that we said, but I think if we had HANSARD before us it would not be difficult to see that none of the persons to whom I have referred agreed even with himself for very long. I hope hon. Members opposite have now seen that what I am saying is strictly relevant to the question before the Committee, because we are now considering whether we can properly go on with this business or not.
We are not considering whether that would be convenient or inconvenient to the party opposite. The Minister of Defence has made it plain why he has to have this Bill. It was in order that other Bills might be considered. Is it really to be maintained that this Committee


should continue to sit, when it is sitting and acting ineffectively, to consider what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has told us is a most important constitutional issue in order that some other Bills should not be impeded in their passage through Parliament? Is there an hon. Member prepared to get up and say that that is not a fair case, and if it is, how many Members are there on the opposite side of the Committee who will conscientiously care to go into the Lobby in favour of this Motion?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure that no one in the Committee will reproach the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence if he, reconsiders his attitude towards this Motion. I put this to him for his consideration. I cannot help thinking that many of the points which have been raised have taken the Government by surprise and it may be the same will

Division No. 194.]
AYES.
[5.56 a.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Stanley, Rt. Hon O.


Birch, Nigel
Linstead, H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Butcher, H. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Byers, Frank
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wadsworth, G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Head, Brig, A. H.
Pickthorn, K.



Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Hope, Lord J.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Major Ramsay and Major Conant.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Keenan, W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Kinley, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Field, Capt. W. J
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J
Foot, M. M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Forman, J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Binns, J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Blenkinsop, A.
Freeman, Maj J. (Watford)
Logan, D. G


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Longden, F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Gibbins, J.
McAllister, G.


Bramall, E. A.
Gibson, C. W
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gilzean, A.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McKinlay, A. S.


Burden, T. W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.


Callaghan, James
Grey, C. F.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mellish, R. J.


Collindridge, F
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Colman, Miss G. M
Hale, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mitchison, G. R.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Monslow, W.


Corvedale, Viscount
Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Crawley, A.
Hewitson, Captain M.
Nally, W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
House, G.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hubbard, T.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkin, B. T.


Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)

apply to what has to be raised on other Amendments which are to be considered. Is it really in the interests of the country and of any political party that matters of substance which will be raised should not be properly discussed? I do not believe that at this hour of the morning those points are likely to get the discussion that they ought to receive. I am also certain that the discussion will last very much longer than it would do if we were to adjourn and come back to those points again with clear and fresh minds. If the Minister cannot accede to the request that the Government should give another day to conclude this business, will he not be reasonable and indicate now an earlier stage at which we might adjourn?

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 156.

Pearson, A.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Watson, W. M.


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Simmons, C. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Popplewell, E.
Skeffington, A. M.
West, D. G.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, M. Philips
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pryde, D. J.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Randall, H. E.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Ranger, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Swingler, S.
Willis, E.


Robens, A.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wise, Major F. J.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Symonds, A. L.
Woodburn, A.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woods, G. S.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wyatt, W.


Sargood, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Tiffany, S.



Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Tolley, L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Mr. Michael Stewart



Warbey, W. N.
and Mr. Hannan.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. When my right hon. Friend moved for leave to report Progress, we were still engaged in discussing an Amendment to Clause 6, line 30, to leave out Subsection (3). We had reached no decision on that and the Amendment had not been withdrawn. The discussion was proceeding when the Motion was moved to report Progress. I submit with great respect that discussion on that Amendment should continue.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment was to leave out Subsection (3) and the Question put to the Committee was "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word punished' in line 31, stand part of the Clause."

Mr. Henry Strauss: On that point of Order. I submit that the Chair is quite right. It is the same Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry if I have unnecessarily taken up the time of the Committee. I did not understand from the way it was put that it was the same Clause. May we now, perhaps, have an opinion from the Law Officers on the point in question, about whether punishment for desertion in this Subsection (3) is the same in each case?

The Attorney-General: Certainly, I have spoken only once on this Clause so far, and I do not propose to repeat what I said then, in regard to it. The advice which I gave the House then in regard to the matter was, I think, correct and it can be read in HANSARD tomorrow morning. The hon. Member correctly apprehended the effect of a failure to comply with a training notice. Persons who fail to comply with such a notice will be subject to the same penalties as the hon. Member indi-

cated and such as would be appropriate in the case of a volunteer in the service in which the conscript had enlisted. That means that there will be some variation of penalties according to the particular force in which the person has been enlisted. The alternative would be to provide that all compulsorily enlisted persons, no matter to which force, Navy, Army, or Air Force, he was allocated would be subject to the same penalty for failure to comply with an enlistment notice. That would produce the curious discrepancy that you would have in the same force, Navy, Army, and Air Force, as the ca se might be, persons who were subject to different penalties for failure to comply with a notice requiring them to perform service. The volunteers would be subject to the penalties under the existing and the conscripted man would be subject to the common penalty. Facing this discrepancy, it was felt that the better course was to ensure that all the personnel in each branch of the service should be subject to the same penalty for failure to comply with the training notice, or corresponding notices requiring their enlistment although that would result in some small discrepancy in the penalties which might be imposed upon compulsorily enlisted men according to the service to which they were allocated.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his explanation on this Subsection. It was clear and lucid, but I hope that it will be possible to put the penalty in the Clause when it is recast. I am sorry the Attorney-General cannot allay my fears about the penalties for failure to attend week-end camps, but perhaps we shall have an agreed view later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after "and," to insert:
unless he has some reasonable excuse.
The purpose of this Amendment is to effect, in a slightly different language, the purpose and intention of the Amendment put down on the Order Paper by, I think, the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts). The purpose is to ensure that there should be equal treatment for all persons who are compulsorily enlisted under this Bill, in whatever branch they may be enlisted. The onus being upon them, they have to show that they had some reasonable excuse for not complying with the training notice.

Mr. Byers: I thank the Government very much for accepting this Amendment. and for having rephrased it in their own words.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, to leave out from "or," to the end of the Clause, and to add:

(a) is a person not ordinarily resident in Great Britain who is, under the provisions of any Act in force in any part of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain, a national or a citizen of that part within the meaning of that Act, or is a person born or domiciled in any such part of His Majesty's dominions or in a British protectorate, a mandated territory, or any other country or territory being a country or territoy under His Majesty's protection or suzerainty; or
(b) is a person employed in the service of the Government of a part of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain, or in the service of the Government of a British protectorate, a mandated territory or some other country or territory which is under His Majesty's protection or suzerainty, being a person whose presence in Great Britain is occasioned solely by his employment in that service; or
(c) is a member of any of the armed forces of the Crown; or
(d) is undergoing training as a cadet at the Royal Military Academy, the Royal Military College, or the Royal Air Force College; or
(e) is a man in holy orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination; or
(f) is the subject of an order or inquisition under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, or is being detained in pursuance of section twenty-five of the Lunacy Act, 1890, or as a criminal lunatic or in pursuance of an order made under the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, or is undergoing treatment as a temporary patient under section five of the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, or is a person placed in an institution or a certified house, or under guardianship, under section three of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, or is the subject of an order under section six, eight, or nine

of that Act, or is under supervision provided under paragraph (b) of section thirty of that Act, or is an inmate of a home approved under section fifty of that Act, or is the subject of a notification under subsection (2) of section fifty-one of that Act; or
(g) is certified by a local authority, as defined by the Blind Persons Acts, 1920 and 1938, to be registered as a blind person under arrangements made by the authority under those Acts.

The purpose of this Amendment is to include in the Bill that part of the 1939 Act which is referred to in Subsection (5) of Clause 6. Most Members of the Committee will agree with me that where we can avoid legislation by reference, we ought to do so. This Amendment would lengthen the Bill only by some thirty lines or so. A Bill like this, which affects the life of every young man, ought to be easy to understand. At present, anybody wanting to know how he stands under the National Service Acts, has to look up three books like these I have in my hand, in order to discover how one Act relates to another. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment in order to avoid legislation by reference. There is one error for which I apologise. We have included both the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College.

6.15 a.m.

Mr. Isaacs: I think the hon. Member probably overlooked the fact that this is an amending Bill, and that there are several places in which it refers to other Acts. If it is necessary to bring into the Bill an Amendment of this kind, such action could not be restricted to' this particular Act. It would be necessary to bring in all the others to which reference is made. This Subsection excludes from liability for training any man on the reserve who then gets into one of the several classes who are not, in the first instance, liable to be called up. Those who will not be liable to be called up in the first instance are men not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, certain men who are employed by Dominion and Colonial Governments. The third class is composed of ministers of religion. The fourth consists of those of unsound mind, and the fifth, the blind. If any man comes into any of these classes—it is possible that a man might become blind, and if we have many more nights like this, some of us may become of unsound mind—he is not affected, and there is no need: for this Amendment. The matter dealt with in this Amendment is in the Third


Schedule of the Bill, and the draft in the Bill is simpler than that proposed in the Amendment. In any event the Amendment states the terms of Section 11 of the original Act as they were originally, and not as they will be amended if the Committee agrees, when the Third Schedule comes under consideration. Therefore the Amendment could not be accepted as it stands. I hope the hon. Member will accept my statement.

Mr. Byers: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. The point about this Clause is that it does not include the people who are excluded from liability for call-up. But surely that is one of the most important things, and one to which every young person, or anyone concerned with young people, will always be wanting to refer. They will want to see how they stand—are they liable or not. I suggest that it might he possible, between now and the Report stage, to put this into the Bill. It would be a great help if we could get it in, instead of referring people to other Acts.

Mr. Isaacs: I think there is something to be said for having these five exclusions indicated. I do not know that those excluded will see the Bill, but others will, and if these five exclusions can be put into the Bill, it will be considered.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be more convenient to make the alteration at the beginning of the Bill, because these exceptions apply to whole-time as well as part-time service, and both are covered by Clause 1.

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Brigadier Low: I should like information on two points. Let me return to training notices. I do not want to drag out the point but the Government by using this word "commuted", which the Minister of Defence brought in today, is rather confusing the Committee. It would appear that if it is a straight commuting of liability under this Bill to the fulfilment of training, that that is really a transfer from a liability under military law. There can be training during which men are not liable under military law. I understand

that when in the Territorial Army doing training you are not subject to military law. There is this great discrepancy between earlier periods of training and periods when you are in camp. In camp you are subject to military law.

Major Legge-Bourke: No.

Brigadier Low: The Government may be able to clear that up. I would refer to Subsection (4) in connection with change of address. Is it intended under this Subsection that when a man goes away for three or four days on holiday, to Blackpool, perhaps, he has-to inform the Service authorities under this Subsection? I suggest to the Minister of Defence that it is a needless burden. Suppose he is moving round the country all the time: has he to give information of his address from day to day?

Mr. Bramall: I ask guidance from the Front Bench as to whether it is intended to keep control over the movements of people who are liable to part-time service, in particular with regard to going abroad. I see they have to notify change of address but they do not have to ask permission to move. May I ask whether any control was envisaged over people who want to go abroad? Six years is a long period in people's lives. Obviously if they could go out of the country during the whole of that period and escape part-time service, it would be wrong. On the other hand, it would be very hard if a person could not go abroad, for example, to become a student for a year, during any part of that part-time service.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to add only one point to those which the Attorney-General has said he will be good enough to look into, and I dare say it is a point which he has in mind. It arises under Subsection (3) which is the penal provision. It says "A person who fails to comply with a training notice". I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that "training notice" will be interpreted as meaning a training notice as varied by any supplementary notice; otherwise we might have the ridiculous position that if a man who had not complied with a supplementary notice had to be prosecuted you would have to go through the form of prosecuting him for not complying with a notice with which he was never meant to comply.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The Secretary of State for War repeated, in essence, a


remark he made on a previous Clause, which may give rise to some misunderstanding. The effect of the remark was that it was either difficult or wrong for someone in the Territorial Army, or in the auxiliary forces, to do more than 15 days' training in a year. That arose when the noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) asked how a man was to get proficiency pay if he could do only 15 days' training. The Secretary of State said that he had no idea what the answer was. Surely the answer is that it is not only possible but desirable that men should do more than 15 days. Anyone who has had experience of the Territorial Army will confirm that you depend on men doing more than the minimum number of drills. If men simply do the minimum, it does no good at all. You have to depend on the men being really keen, otherwise you merely have a trained gang.

Mr. Alexander: The point which I put when I used the word "commute" was a perfectly reasonable one. The word I used may have been ill-chosen, but I do not want any wrong interpretation because I happened to use that word. With regard to the question of people who go abroad, I think it would be quite possible for people to go abroad, especially as people who leave the country are not being checked as they were during the war. I think it would be most unfortunate if there were a strict restriction that people liable to service should not be allowed to go abroad for a holiday or for business purposes, for such time as may be required. I will have the matter examined closely to see if we can get some regulations made which will be reasonable and proper.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Byers: Ought it not to be included in the Bill?

Mr. Alexander: There will have to be some administrative arrangement. I do not say, at the moment, that it should go into the Bill, but I will look into the point.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: This is a very important point. This may mean the direction and control of the person during the whole of the period for which he is liable for part-time service.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he will look into

the possibility of so providing in the Bill, with the confident hope of finding such a possibility, or does he mean that he will set out with the conviction that the thing cannot be done statutorily, or does he mean that he will be able to offer us, on the Report stage, some assurance about the regulations? The things are different, and I hope that the Committee will think that the former alternative is what ought now to be offered.

Mr. Alexander: I do not promise to look at the matter with the conviction that it cannot go into the Statute. I do not want to make any promise that we shall find that it is a matter that ought to go into the Statute, but the matter will be examined properly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Modifications of enactments relating to persons called up for service.)

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, to leave out Subsection (1).
With apologies, or rather without apologies to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for putting down this Amendment, for at the time we did not know of his prejudices, my hon. Friends and I have done so in order to find out what the Subsection means. I think that the hon. Member, and Members generally, would agree that it is the duty of this Committee to scrutinise very closely all these empowerings of Orders in Council. I confess that I am not clear exactly what it is that is done here. Perhaps I may read what seem to be the operative words, leaving out the draughtsman's necessary verbiage, of the Subsection, in the hope that somebody on the Front Bench will explain what they mean, and, I hope, explain that they mean less than they sound as though they might mean to a non-legal man:
His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any enactment relating to the length or conditions of service of persons "—
brought under this Bill shall have effect subject to
such adaptations and modifications as may appear"—
to His Majesty's Council—
to be necessary or expedient …
From these words, taking them at their ordinary consideration, it would seem to


leave it quite at large to Ministerial discretion to vary the length and conditions of service of everybody coming in. No doubt that is not the intention or, indeed, the purport of this Subsection, but I think it ought to be made clear to the Committee exactly how much authority is being taken by this Subsection.

Mr. S. Silverman: To what extent does the hon. Member owe me an apology?

Mr. Pickthorn: A little earlier in our proceedings—I think it was about five hours ago, or maybe even more—the hon. Member, when we were discussing an Amendment of this nature, rather argued that it made nonsense of the Bill to move to leave out a whole Subsection. I, therefore, thought that as he was here now I would make it clear that the intention is not by leaving out to wreck the Bill but that the Amendment has been put down by way of exploration.

Mr. S. Silverman: There are two things I should like to say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). I have been more continuously in this Chamber than he has. He has seen fit to refer on several occasions to my one absence and I am glad to know that he missed me so much when I was away. I also want to tell him that there is no connection between the matter to which he referred and the Amendment which he has now moved.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) failed to attach sufficient significance to the words which, in fact, he did not read to the Committee having regard to the provisions of this Bill giving power to make Orders in Council. The purpose of this Subsection is to enable existing enactments relating to the Aimed Forces to be adapted to the further liabilities imposed under this Bill in the case of men compulsorily enrolled under its provisions. The principal variation concerns the length of service with the reserve or auxiliary forces. The ordinary voluntary term under the existing enactments is four to five years, but six years is the part-time service provided under this Bill. Consequently these modifications have to be made. There will be certain other minor modifications. For instance there are the provisions in regard to the question of premature discharge. matters of details and things of that kind,

but the Committee will see that not only is the power of making Orders in Council limited to the purposes of the present Bill, but that these Orders in Council are subject to confirmation.

Brigadier Peto: Could the Attorney-General explain if it is possible under this Clause to arrange an additional training period if it is found that the 60 days in six years is not sufficient? In other words, could there be a period of service additional to what is now fixed as the normal?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that this Clause deals with that aspect of the matter at all. It does not enlarge in any way the period of service provided under the earlier sections of the Bill and the maximum is 60 days.

Mr. Byers: Could we have some explanation of the sort of case that this is intended to cover?

The Attorney-General: I thought I had explained that.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, after "fails" to insert "without reasonable excuse."
This is similar to the Amendment moved by the Attorney-General earlier in regard to the Army, and it does the same for naval discipline. It insures that a man must be without reasonable excuse before he is actually treated as a deserter.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should like to ask the Finiancial Secretary to the Admiralty two questions. I first direct his attention to Subsection 2 (a) and to the words:
… the law for the time being. …
What does that mean? Secondly, if he looks at the same Subsection he will see a reference to the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act, 1859, and then it implies that this Act is to be altered. I should like to know if its to be altered and if so, in what particulars.

Mr. Dugdale: In answer to the first question, the point is that it is the law at the time of call up, not the law at the moment. In regard to Section 19 of the


Naval Discipline Act which was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member in his second question, it defines desertion by reference to the intention to return to the man's ship or place of duty. Some doubt was expressed whether a man could be a deserter from a ship in which he had never been. It was felt that it needed some clarification.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should like to ask these questions again, because I have got no answer to them. I agree that the Financial Secretary told us in reply to my first question that it was the law at the time of the call up, not the law at this time. What I asked about is the wording which suggested to me that some change in the law was anticipated, and I asked if he would tell us if that were so, and if so what was the change. Secondly, I was not quoting the Naval Discipline Act at all, I asked him about a provision under the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act and what provisions of that Act he anticipated would need to be changed.

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Dugdale: With regard to the first question, it is important that it should be the law at the time when the question arises, and for all we know, there might be some alteration in the law. Therefore, we are making this subject to the state of affairs that exists when the man is, in fact, called up.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I have an answer to the other question? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what is meant by alterations of the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act, 1859?

Mr. Dugdale: I do not see anything in the provision about alterations. It says:
subject to the foregoing provisions of this Subsection the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act, 1850, shall apply.
There is then a reference to the "last foregoing Subsection"—obviously it is Subsection (1).

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Transitional provisions.)

Amendments made: In page 5, line 45, leave out "eighteen," and insert "twelve."

In page 6, line 4, leave out "eighteen," and insert "twelve."—[Mr. Alexander.]

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) No person who has been entered or enlisted under the National Service Acts before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and is serving in the armed forces of the Crown under those Acts at the commencement of this Act shall be required to continue to serve therein after the commencement of this Act.
This is a very simple Amendment and needs few words of explanation. The effect, if the Amendment were accepted, would be to put the man who is called up on 1st January, 1947, in the same position as the man who will be called up on 1st January, 1948; that is to say, to give a statutory safeguard that his service will be only of twelve months. I am not sure, but I understood that it was the intention of the Government that it should be so.

Mr. Alexander: The pledge was that they should not be kept serving after any man who was called up on 1st January, 1949. The point is that, under the White Paper now, the service is tapered down, starting from two years for those who enlisted in early 1947, until those who were enlisted during 1948, who will serve not more than 18 months. The pledge which I gave was that we would reconsider that matter and arrange that anyone who is called up -during that period 1947–48 should not be held to go on serving after the end of the service of the men called up under this Bill. We shall have an administrative arrangement to taper it down so as to meet the situation.

Mr. Stanley: I think it is very unsatisfactory that a matter of such great importance to the people called up now should be left merely to administrative action, and I cannot see why it is impossible to put the statutory protection in the Bill. I certainly was under the impression that the pledge given was that the people at any rate who enlisted before 1st January, 1947, would be released by the time this Measure started and that those who enlisted after that, would be tapered off. What guarantee has such a man in the Bill? What is being done to assimilate his period to the period of those who came only a short time after? It is not good enough to say that he will be let out before anybody else who is called up under this Measure will be let out. If that is the only safeguard given, it is


manifestly worth very little. It means that a man enlisted perhaps well before 1st January, 1947, can be kept until nearly the end of 1948. He could be made to serve two to three years and it seems to me that if that is the only effect of the right hon. Gentleman's pledge, it is not good enough. I suggest that we should insert proper statutory provisions. I suggest first that we should say that anyone enlisted before 1st January, 1947, should be free when this new Act comes into force. Secondly, we should put in the Schedule the tapering which was promised in the White Paper but which we think should have statutory force behind it. It is with that object that I move the first of these Amendments in my name on the Paper.

Mr. Alexander: I had better recall the actual words of what I said yesterday afternoon on this matter so that the position can be plain to the right hon. Gentleman. I have a copy of the actual words here and perhaps he would like me to repeat them to make it clear:
In the changed circumstances of the fulltime service of men called up after 1st January, 1949, being limited to 12 months, there is clearly ground for reconsidering the periods of service of men called up in 1948 as set out in Command Paper 6831. They would otherwise be serving after the release of those called up in the early months of 1949 under the new Bill.
So that the pledge I have given is that they will under the tapering off arrangement gain in 1948 about six months of embodied service. That will reduce the service for which they were called up by about six months. This is so that they will not serve on after any man called up under the new Bill is discharged.

Brigadier Low: Is not the right hon. Gentleman talking on the second of the two Amendments, and, since you have ruled, Major Milner, that the Amendments should be taken separately, should the Minister not bow to your Ruling and talk to us on the, first Amendment, and not on the second?

Mr. Alexander: I understand, Major Milner, that you are taking these two Amendments separately, but the first one deals only with persons enlisted before 1st January, 1947, under the National Service Acts. I am sorry, but the Government do not feel able to accept that Amendment. Its purpose is to secure that men called up before 1st January, 1947,

are released before this Bill comes into force on 1st January, 1949. It is stated that all those serving in 1940, except those on regular engagements, will be released according to age and service, before the end of 1948. But we think it would be undesirable to give statutory effect in the present Bill.

Mr. Stanley: It is exactly as I thought. I thought that the effect of this was to put into statutory language a pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave elsewhere. He hotly denied it at the time, but now he points to the pledge which he gave—a Governmental pledge—and says that it is unnecessary to give it statutory authority. I am not prepared to accept it. I think that such a pledge, important as this, should be given statutory authority. This deals with a time very far ahead, and I cannot believe that it is impossible, in order to carry out the pledge, to make the administrative arrangements well ahead which will allow these people to be brought back here in time to fulfil the pledge. The Minister's statement only confirms me in the belief that this ought to be inserted in the Bill.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that the Minister will think again about this. There is a state of exhaustion which sets in at a certain moment, and I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer immediately. But I have, I think, in the past, understood this matter almost as well as it can be understood, at least by me, and I have, I think, followed all the various promises and pledges, and so on. What my right hon. Friend has just said is strictly true. We are asking that statutory form should be given to what is a strict Governmental pledge. The only reason alleged why we cannot be given that is that the Government wants to have a free hand and to be their own judges in their own case about which and how exceptions shall be made. That cannot be a proper argument for refusing an Amendment, in any circumstances and upon any matter. Conscription, as has been said more than once, is the most odious form of taxation and the one which comes home most intimately to the bosoms of men and women. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wish to be witty? That is what conscription is, and conscription is


being placed now on our country by a Government which has spent two years planning everything else, but shows no sign whatever of having planned this. It is plain that Ministers, in a great many cases, do not know what the different provisions in this Bill mean. They have already in their power through what has become a rather grisly legal fiction that "the present emergency" is continuing since 1939, the people called up two or three years ago. It is only by maintaining the legal fiction that the emergency, which was the war against Germany and later Japan, has not passed, that they are still able to continue to hold these men. Even at this moment, when they come and tell us that twelve months is quite long enough to hold a man. It is a curious paradox that they should continue to refuse to these older, longer-held men any kind of statutory limitation upon their term of service. That is precisely what the Government are doing. I am not sure that the hon. Members who are so certain that they have got this right have attended all the business during the last 10 hours or so. If they have, they may be tired too. But I think I am getting this right, and if not I ought to be clearly corrected. Some hon. Members opposite claimed that not more than a year can decently be claimed from a young man; at the same time he is using this rather grisly legal fiction to deny to the men already under the control of the Service Ministries, any term being put on the period of their service. That seems to me a highly paradoxical situation.

Mr. Swingler: I cannot accept entirely the answer made to this Amendment. As the Government gave a pledge to the House some 12 months ago, I am disturbed by the Minister's statement that there may be individual exceptions, and his use of that argument as a reason for not accepting the Amendment. As I understand it, men who were in the Forces up to 31st December, 1946, if they have not been demobilised by the end of 1948, will in any case have served a period of two years or more.
Under the administrative scheme produced by the Government the men called up this year serve for a period of two years and those called up next year—1048—serve for a period reduced to 18 months. Some change is required in the

arrangements, since in the Bill as amended, the period from 1st January, 1949, will be 12 months, in order to taper the period for those called up, for instance, in December, 1948, who will be called up for 18 months. I can see there may be some difficulty in introducing that tapering and there may be some individual anomalies. It may be necessary that some of those called up in the latter part of 1948 will still be in the Service a little longer than some of those called up in the early part of 1949 but I cannot understand why those in the Forces up to 31st December, 1946, should continue serving after the 31st December, 1948, when they will have done more than the two years' period of service which the men called up from 1st January this year will have served. If that is the position, clearly the men called up during this year should serve longer, in order that those in the Forces in 1946 might be released first. Thus, it seems to me, we should have a definite assurance from the Minister of Defence on the categorical pledge given by the Minister of Labour, that those who are still in the Forces before the bringing into effect of the new scheme will, without any exceptions whatever, be released before the introduction of the Bill. I see no reason why the Minister of Defence cannot reassure us on that point.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: May I strongly support the point put forward by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler). This is a matter. which causes a considerable amount of concern among men who were called up before the war came to an end and will still be in the Forces in 1948. The remarks of the Minister of Defence tonight that there will be exceptions, will cause grave disquiet among these men. For that reason, unless this pledge is renewed by the Minister categorically and in the fullest terms, this Amendment should be pressed.

Major Bruce: I should like to reinforce the request made by my hon. Friend. I do not see why there should be any individual exceptions to the pledge made by the Minister of Labour. It would seem that this is a case in which individuals should not be required to bear the onus of any administrative shortcomings of AQ staff. Those Members on the other side of the Committee as well as on this side who have


had some experience of service in the Forces know that this business of administrative difficulties can be made to cover a multitude of sins and we on this side see no reason why this pledge given by tile Minister of Labour should not apply in every individual case.

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to support this plea very strongly. I have had more letters about this than about anything else connected with this Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider those cases where families may have so arranged themselves that you have a boy who is already called up, and a lad who is just about to be called up when this Bill comes into force. Families of that nature will be very hard hit. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that every time he says there are to be exceptions, it at once arouses suspicion and causes many people uneasiness which could be proved entirely groundless if he would make this a statutory provision.

Mr. Hollis: I hope that the Committee are thoroughly alarmed about this. We are continually told by Ministers that they do not accept Amendments because they are not necessary, or Ministers often ask us to trust them because they are such good fellows. I thought if this Amendment were not accepted, it would be resisted by that argument. But the argument is enormously more alarming than that. We have now had suddenly thrown out that this is not to be put in the Bill because there are to be exceptions, and what the extent of these exceptions is to be, we are not told. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) spoke of administrative difficulties covering a multitude of incompetencies, but if things are left as they are, the situation will be intolerably more alarming.

Mr. Alexander: May I explain the position in order to save time? I have the Command Paper which was presented by my right hon. Friend in May, 1946, containing the pledge. It is perfectly plain that when pledges are given in White Papers presented to Parliament, they are carried out. When I referred to the fact that it was not desirable to include this as a statutory provision in a Bill calling up men after January, 1949, the exceptions included such persons as deserters who had joined the forces before 1947. Under the terms of the Amend-

ment, they would have to be released by the end of 1948, whatever their service might have been. That is the kind of exception I have in mind. We have given the pledge in the White Paper, and it will be strictly carried out.

Mr. Stanley: There is no more in the Amendment than is contained in this White Paper. None of us wants this to cover deserters, and I do not know whether it does. But it is clear from the argument we have had about it that it would be better to put something into the Bill, about which there could be no argument. All of us would agree that in putting that into the Bill we might depart from the strict letter of the pledge in order to include the case of the deserter for whom we have no sympathy. If the Minister cannot accept this form of words, I hope he will promise to insert something into the Bill at another stage which will set at rest the anxieties which have been aroused in this Debate.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The Minister must realise that the heads of the three Services will be under extreme pressure, when this Bill becomes law, because there will be great demands for new establishments, new training, and new methods. There will be a tendency to try to get men to stay on; there will be grave temptation to quote the exigencies of the Service to compel men to stay on. The Minister did not refer to special cases in his first statement, but, later, he gave a pledge that the only exceptions were to be deserters. Unless that is specifically mentioned in the Bill there is no guarantee that that may be so. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government may not be in office at that time. The Minister should look at this Clause again, to see that while deserters do not get any advantage out of it those entitled to be released under the pledge will be released.

Mr. Alexander: I am prepared to look at it again, of course, but I beg the Committee to remember that the whole of our tremendous demobilisation scheme has been carried out under the White Paper, exactly as pledged. I will see whether it is reasonable, in all the circumstances, to put something into the Statute But, if that is done it will be the first time that Parliament has seen fit to put part of our demobilisation scheme into a Statute. We want to exclude those who


have not earned release because they have been deserters, or because they have not earned it for any other special reason.

Mr. Macpherson: The difficulty is that in demobilisation schemes there have been great differences between age and service groups throughout. Here we say, "By such and such a date the age and service groups alike will be out."

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the vast number of deferments which have taken place under the demobilisation scheme? It is that sort of thing that we are out to try to prevent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence made reference to people who have been kept in for special administrative reasons. What does he mean by that? It is easy to put a pledge into the Statute. The right hon. Gentleman in his penultimate speech mentioned deserters and others and then came this reference to people being kept in for special administrative reasons.

Mr. Alexander: I have promised to look at the matter but what I had in mind was with regard to those who have been retained for administrative reasons. I do not want to give a pledge in every case, but there ought to be something, in a case of a breakdown in transport or anything like that. In any case, there is no doubt whatever as to our keeping our pledge which we put down in the White Paper.

Mr. Bramall: I should like to leave the matter, but I think the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman needs emphasising. Why not convert this from a White Paper statement into a pledge in the Statute? If it is a statutory obligation, there will be no administrative breakdown because the reliefs will be sent there in time and they will have to get there in time. If it is not statutory, we all know what that means and we have all suffered from that in the past. I entreat my right hon. Friend to consider this matter, too. I believe it would be a

Division No. 195.]
AYES.
[7.25 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, George (Helper)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Binns, J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blenkinsop, A.
Callaghan, James


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Braddock, Mrs, E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Collindridge, F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Bramall, E. A.
Collins, V. J.

very great fillip to the men who are in the Forces. It was not possible to do that before, under any release scheme for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson), because the whole thing was flexible. There was nothing that could be put into the Statute. Now we have something definite, and it is definite consolidated statement.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to rise to my feet again, but there is one other point to which I must refer. I think that this is a matter to which might well have been given half a day's debate in normal conditions. The Minister of Defence, in saying he would take this matter back for consideration, said that if it were done this would be the first time that that sort of thing had been put in a Statute. But this is the first time that we have considered permanent conscription on a peace time basis. The point I wish to raise is in relation to that portion of yesterday's speech, which the Minister read at a very fast rate, and again today. I can quite understand that a speaker generally reads faster than the listener wants him to, but it is rather difficult for us to follow swiftly-read speeches of that sort. It was the phrase about another category of releases and he made reference to voluntary engagements for fixed periods. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will look at that, too. I am not quite sure who is covered by that. Quite a considerable number of people have received commissions at one time or another under engagements or half-engagements, explicit or implicit, more or less related to "the present emergency." Incidentally most of them were about 18, still three years below that at which a moneylender would lend them 3s. 6d. I think it ought to be looked at from the point of view of people entering into a promise or half-promise of that sort, either of a Service or regimental nature, and being held now too long.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 138; Noes, 30.

Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Sargood, R


Corvedale, Viscount
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Keenan, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Skeffington, A. M.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Longden, F.
Strom, Dr. B.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McAllister, G.
Swingler, S.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McKinlay, A. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Field, Capt. W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Tiffany, S


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Tolley, L.


Freeman. Maj. J. (Watford)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mellish, R. J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Gibbins, J.
Mikardo, Ian
Watson, W. M


Gibson, C. W
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Gilzean, A.
Monslow, W
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Nally, W.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Parkin, B. T.
Willis, E.


Hale, Leslie
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wise, Major F. J


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Woodburn, A.


Hardy, E. A.
Popplewell, E.
Wyatt, W.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. Philips
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Hewitson, Captain M.
Pryde, D. J.



Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


House, G.
Randall, H. E.
Mr. Michael Stewart


Hoy, J.
Ranger, J.
and Mr. Hannan.


Hubbard, T.
Reid, T. (Swindon)





NOES


Birch, Nigel
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Rt. Hon O.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Byers, Frank
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Touche, G. C.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wadsworth, G.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Major S.



Lambert, Hon. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Comdr. Agnew and Major Conant.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(3) No person who has been entered or enlisted for service in the armed forces of the Crown under the National Service Acts after the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and forty-six and before the commencement of this Act shall be required to serve therein under those Acts for a period longer than the appropriate period in accordance with the Schedule to this Act (Periods of Service for men called up in 1947 and 1948).
This Subsection shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
This Amendment raises a point rather similar to that which has been under discussion, and I hope we shall be able to elicit an even more satisfactory statement—I am flattering the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that he will be conciliatory—from him with regard to his attitude towards this category of men who are

now serving in the Forces. This is another case where we have endeavoured to incorporate in the Bill a pledge contained in the White Paper on the call-up. It has been impossible to frame the Schedule which will be attached to this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper on the call-up, he will see at the top of page 3 the run-down which is contemplated, and, indeed, promised, for men called up during 1947–48. We have handed in an Amendment which is not, as yet, on the Order Paper, which is similar in form to the* schedule in the White Paper, only varying the period because the White Paper was published at the time when the right hon. Gentleman thought it right that the period of compulsory service should be 18 months, and because the run-down contemplated was two


years for those who joined in January, 1948, and 18 months for those who joined in December. I know it will not be easy for the right hon. Gentleman, not having seen the schedule, to express an opinion on the contents of it, and I am not asking him to say he is prepared to accept it. I am asking him to say that he is prepared to incorporate this pledge in the Bill and especially to make it clear, beyond all possible shadow of doubt to the men in the Services at the present time, that they are not going to suffer by being held in the Forces by reason of the reduction of the 18 months' service to 12.

Mr. Alexander: I am sorry I cannot accept in advance a schedule I have not seen. In any case, I am not prepared at this moment to accept a revision of the schedule beyond the promise which I did make to the Committee yesterday afternoon that we would arrange, by a tapering down process, that no one shall be kept so long as he might have been kept. I am taking the last man who would be called up in, say, December, 1948, if he had to serve a minimum of 18 months which was set out in the schedule to the White Paper. He would have been held until the end of June, 1950. I have given a pledge that no such man will be held after the end of December, 1949, so that he does not, in any case, serve after any man called up under the Bill. That pledge will be carried out, but I want the Committee to remember that in the light of the commitments of the country and the very rapid run-down of the Forces, we have considerable difficulty in meeting these commitments between now and 1950. I have explained that we are taking some risks, and whilst we will carry out this pledge, I want the Service departments to be able to make their own tapering down arrangements so long as they carry out the pledge. The pledge will be carried out but I certainly cannot undertake to have a revision of the kind the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer these two questions? Firstly, supposing an Amendment were drafted putting into statutory form the pledge he has given, would he accept that? Secondly, if he were faced in 1949 and 1950 with a shortage of men, which would he choose, to break the pledge which he has given or come to the House

and increase the 12 months to 18 months? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer those two questions?

Mr. Alexander: I do not propose to answer questions of that sort more than I have already said in the Debate today. I have given my pledge and I have said that if there were any deterioration in the position we should have to consider the position again.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Cannot the Minister hold out a little more hope than that? My recollection is that he made a pledge, with certain exceptions. He will need to fix the tapering down for each respective Service, and I hope he will see that there is co-ordination, because there has been a great difference in the age groups of the different Services. I really am at a loss to understand why the Minister, if he is prepared to carry out this pledge, is reluctant to frame it in words of his own choosing and incorporate it in an Act of Parliament, where everyone can see it written. Nothing would give greater hope to those called up, and I do ask him if he will not say that, "This is my pledge and to show that there is no doubt about it, I am not reluctant to put my pledge down so that whoever succeeds me will find it binding upon them."

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This does seem a most unsatisfactory state of things. This is about the most unsatisfactory sort of pledge to cover this class of people. All the Minister says is that anybody not called up under this Act will not be asked to serve longer than those who are called up under it. I do suggest that it will give very little—shall I call it pleasure?—to the people concerned to know that if they happen to be called up on 31st December, before this Bill comes into force, they will be released as soon as those called up on 1st January. Why should some have to do longer than others?

Mr. Alexander: We must allow our Service authorities to "taper down," but I cannot arrange straight away to reduce them all forthwith to 12 months.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The whole of the arguments made yesterday afternoon were based on the assumption that 12 months was a sufficient period. If we are now going to have the Minister, at


a quarter to eight in the morning, saying that 1st January is all right, I suggest that he should have said it earlier in the day. Because the Act is being brought in, that does not mean that there can be a rule on the left hand, and another on the right. We want to see some evenness of this burden, but all we have heard is that, if a chap is lucky enough to be called up earlier, he knows he will be no worse off than the chap called up on 1st January.
The right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to answer the case of all the other people called up in the preceding year, who may well have to do service over and above what the next age-group will have to do. Something should be done in this Bill to even out the burden, and to try and make easier this conscription, which we all know is the heaviest burden which this country has been asked to bear in any sphere for a long time past.

7.45 a.m.

Mr. Alexander: It seems to me that whenever one tries to make a concession it leads one into further trouble. [Interruption.] I am talking to hon. Members opposite, at the moment. Before we came to the Committee with. this proposition, we thought it out very carefully. I also pointed out this afternoon that, compared with the young men who are in the schedule referred to for enlistment in 1948, there are others who will be faced with six years' compulsory training service. In the light of that, and in the light of our commitments, we ought to get some advantage in the tapering off if we meet them handsomely.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry that I cannot agree. We have to consider the effect on the chap starting his career in the continuous service period. The reserve period is a very light burden compared with the continuous service period. I cannot agree with the Minister of Defence on this subject, and I would ask him to look at this again and try to spread the burden more evenly between those serving under the present scheme and those who will serve under the new scheme.

Mr. Stanley: I do not wish to press this Amendment. It has been impossible for the schedule referred to to appear on the Paper, and of course it would be

ridiculous to ask the Minister to accept a schedule he has never seen. When the schedule does appear on another stage, the right hon. Gentleman will see that we have followed as far as we can the words of the pledge he has given. There is no attempt to do away with this run down. We realise that with the commitments we have the Services have to have men. But we will have the Amendment in proper form on the Paper for a later stage, and we trust that if there is any way in which the right hon. Gentleman can do so, he will meet it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, which we shall put on the Paper for the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, to leave out "provisions of the last foregoing subsection," and to insert, "foregoing provisions of this section."
There are two Amendments here which, I think, for the convenience of the Committee, might be taken together. They are mainly drafting Amendments, and it is hoped that by the alterations proposed we shall make clear the liability of the men in the Service now, and of those who will be called up this year and next year under the Bill. It is proposed that those called up prior to 1947 shall have no liability under the Bill we are now discussing. Those who have been called up since 1st January this year will be expected to do at least as much as the men called up under the Bill. That shortly is the position.

Mr. Pickthorn: It leaves me still more puzzled about why the Government rejected the earlier Amendments. If it is now in order to make these arrangements to get some Reserve service out of people called up in 1947—and I can see the usefulness of that—you might have done something more useful by legislating to get some Reserve service out of people called up in 1946 and release those people three months sooner than otherwise would be done. You would be strengthening your Reserve of trained men much more than you would by keeping on these people for the short periods they are now being kept on. I cannot see why we should not have Reserve service taken in lieu of those


lengthened periods for persons called up a little earlier. I hope this will be considered along with the other matters.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not detract at all from what the Minister of Defence has said. What we are doing in these Amendments is to provide for liabilities of those men now in the Services who have no reserve obligations at all. We are providing for the future. If we did what is suggested, it would be asking men who have already done much more than those who will serve under the Bill to take on an additional Reserve liability to the service they have done over and above that provided in the Bill. I think that is one of the obstacles.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page b, line 23, leave out from "the," to the end of the line, and insert "commencement of this Act."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Special provision as to medical and general practitioners.)

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Byers: I had two Amendments down on this Clause but I understand it would be convenient to the Committee if I made these short points now. The only reason why the Amendments were put down was to get clarification from the Government about the economic use of doctors and dentists in the Forces, and I merely want to ask the Government what is their intention so far as it concerns whole-time service. We cannot afford to waste doctors. It is conceivable that there will be more than the number required by the Forces at any given time. Is it the intention of the Government to reduce the period of service while keeping doctors and dentists in the Forces not required for the needs of the Forces, or is there some other arrangement?
For part-time service I can quite see the necessity for calling up doctors and dentists for annual camps, but I cannot see the reason for calling them up to do an hourly period here and an hourly period there, even perhaps for short week-end camps. It would be very useful if we could have that clarification from the Government at this stage.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: This is a very important Clause, because it is the only Clause dealing with doctors and dentists, who have a special place in this Bill. I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), said, because taking into consideration the number of doctors who qualify each year—and the average over the last 10 years has been just over 3,000—there will be far more doctors than are required for the Services. Of those 3,000 doctors, some are women, others may be too old for service when they qualify, and others may be unfit for service; but there will still be 1,500 doctors fit to serve in the Services, and if every one of those is called up an enormous force will be needed to occupy them. In general practice there is one doctor for every 3,500 people. If that is reduced on a liberal allocation in the Services to one doctor for every 1,000 recruits although they are fitter individuals than the mass of children and women and the general public—a force of 1,500,000 will be required to occupy the 1,500 doctors.
The problem with regard to dentists is the very opposite. An average of 400 dentists have qualified each year over the last 10 years. Taking into consideration the fact that some are women, some are not fit for Service, and some are too old, there will still be a good many dentists able to be called up each year. What is to be done with the doctors? Is the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Dorset to be accepted, and are they to be called up for a shorter period; or is some other employment to be found for them, such as service in the Colonial Service, service in the National Health Service scheme in the unattractive areas of the country which are said to be without doctors? The thing to be avoided is having Service doctors unemployed, or partially employed, whilst there are at the same time overworked doctors in general practice.
There is one other point not included in the Clause on which I should like an assurance. I hope an assurance can be given that individuals whose vocation is to be medicine or dentistry, will have an opportunity, if they wish, to perform their national service before qualifying as a doctor or dentist. At the present moment there is a waiting period before getting into a medical school or dental school, and there would be a golden opportunity for some students to perform their national


service before qualifying. On the other hand, I am certain that the majority of those who are entering medicine or dentistry will wish to perform their national service after they have qualified, because they will then have an opportunity of performing their service in a commissioned rank and in their vocation, rather than in the ranks and in combatant service. I should like that opportunity kept open for all those who are entering the medical or dental professions.
This Clause deals with specialists. It makes it possible for those who intend to specialise not be called up until the. age of 30. I believe that everybody who intends to specialise in medicine will put off their call-up until the very last day, until they have their specialist qualification. Therefore, again there will be in the Services many more specialists than are required. What is to be done to coordinate the demand in the Services for specialists with the large number that will be available? Is it intended, there again, as has been suggested with the general practitioners, to cut down the length of period they need serve? How is it intended to deal with this difficult problem? There are three times as many doctors as dentists, and I impress upon the Committee that we cannot afford to have doctors unemployed in the Forces whilst their fellow doctors are overworked in general practice.

8.0 a.m.

Mr. Isaacs: We do not want to denude the country of doctors by taking them into the Forces simply because we have the right to do that. There is a Medical Priority Committee, over which my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) is Chairman, and we shall consult them as to the best way of making the best use of the medical services that are available. It may be best in some localities if the doctors have to serve for a shorter period, or are exempt altogether. I am not sure that it would not be best to say, "There are 1,000 doctors, but we want only 500." As regards dentists, we shall deal with the situation affecting them as it comes along, which will not be before early in 1949. We shall do the same with the specialists, because we do not want to take a man into the Forces just because he is a specialist. We shall want to take in the kind of specialist that the Forces arc looking for.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Further education during whole-time service.)

Colonel Wigg: I beg to move, in page 7, line 2, to leave out, "so far as may be practicable," and to insert:
as may be determined in consultation with the Minister of Education and in association with national organisations interested in adult education.
I am not the author of this Amendment. It has its origin in the report that was presented to Lord Addison, when he was Minister of Reconstruction at the end of the 1914–18 war. The committee that submitted that report was a very distinguished one. It included among its members the present Foreign Secretary and one of its joint secretaries was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood). The committee took cognisance of the experiments which had been attempted both in our own Army and in the Dominion Forces, and, as a result, recommended that it was necessary for education in the Army to stand in relation to the universities in the same way as the B.M.A. stands in relation to the Royal Army Medical Corps. The committee stressed that the Army was not an instrument to make men good, but to make them fight, and that if education in the Army was to be worth while it had to be linked with the universities, local education authorities, the Board of Education, and voluntary organisations, so that it should have content and be wholly worth while.
In August, 1919, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who was then Secretary of State for War, made a most important declaration. He said that education in the Army should be an integral part of a soldier's training, but, unfortunately, the experiments carried out in the 1914–18 war, and the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, did not bear fruit. As a result it became evident by 1939 that education in the Army was anything but worth while. When the Militia Bill was introduced in 1939 an Amendment similar to the one I am moving was put down. Indeed, as far as possible I have copied the exact words which were moved by my right hon. Friend who is now the Colonial Secretary. I do not think I am


very far wrong in claiming that this Amendment has distinguished parentage, and certainly it should find a ready acceptance on these benches.
The then Secretary of State for War said that he could not accept the Amendment, but he gave an assurance that what my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary was then moving would, in fact, be done. As a result, he entered into consultations with the education authorities and with the universities, and he asked them to set up regional committees to consider this whole question, which they did. Because of the war it was several months before anything else was done, but in December, 1939, there was a meeting of the university vice-chancellors, representatives from education authorities and certain voluntary organisations, and as a result there was set up a Central Advisory Council to encourage education in His Majesty's Forces. The work done by that original committee is a most magnificent work, and it is still continuing to do fine work in the Army.
About a year ago the Secretary of State for War in his wisdom rather tended to draw away from that organisation, and he set up a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Philip Morris, who had been Director General of Education in the Army. That committee met a number of times. It was very much an advisory committee; it certainly did not function in an executive capacity. The committee has been reorganised and we have a continuance of the wartime advisory council still in existence. It has to be noted that there is no comparable organisation in the Royal Navy or in the Royal Air Force, and it is important to note that the Army is much better off in regard to education than the other two Services. I think that is largely due to the inspiration of the Adjutant-General, Sir Robert Adams, to whom the Army owes a great debt, as it does to the Universities.
Yesterday afternoon I was charged by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) with believing that conscription was a good thing. That is untrue. What I said was that while conscription was unfortunate and alien to our way of life, if we had to have it, it need not necessarily be a bad thing. It does give us the opportunity of doing for these young men what we started before

the war. We have to note that Clause 10 relieves the local education authority of the duty of providing further education for adults. It transfers to the Service authority, with the qualification "as far as may be practicable," with the result that the Service authorities are laws unto themselves. I think I have said enough to show that the Services have only done what they have been urged to do, what in some cases they have been coerced to do. Therefore, it is quite wrong to take these men into the Armed Forces and then to leave the Service authorities, as judges in their own cause, to decide whether they will or will not provide education for them.
One realises very readily of course that one of the things that will suffer as a result of the reduction from 18 months to 12 is education. As much has to be done in less time, and therefore it will be very difficult indeed—it was always difficult, but it will become more difficult—to provide educational facilities for the young men called up, but although the difficulties will now be very great I am sure every Member of the Committee is anxious to see that they are not made the excuse for doing nothing. Therefore I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment to put a definite statutory obligation upon the Service authorities to consult with the Minister of Education and with the voluntary organisations, with a view to implementing the decision reached a generation ago with the approval of so many distinguished Members of the Government. To do so will be wholly in line with the Government's policy, and it will, I am sure, be in accordance with the wishes of every Member of the Committee to see that this period of one year is turned to the utmost advantage in the interest not only of the individuals but of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Harold Davies: I should like to support very briefly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg). I have in my hand the report by Lord Sorell on education after the last war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Having worked here for a good many hours, I think it would be as well if we all woke up a bit. I would like to quote from the final report of the Adult Education Committee of the Ministry of Reconstruction in 1919, because I do not want this side of the Committee to claim all


the credit for Army education. I think that on all sides of the House the merit of this work has been recognised. I would like to read this:
When sufficient time has elapsed to enable the events of the war to be seen in their true perspective the rise and development of the educational movement among the Armed Forces will stand out as one of the most striking and unpredictable.
That was in 1919, when the origins of the movement were to be found amongst the men in all parts of this country and abroad. After great efforts we began to canalise the movement and, cutting out the inter-war period, when we came to this war, once again, through the efforts of the adult education bodies and the universities, we restablished a belief in Forces' education. It was Milton who truly said that education makes a generous soldier in peace and in war. If we want our Forces to he ambassadors of British civilisation, I urge the Secretary of State to note this Amendment which has been put down in the name of several hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I really and truly believe that through Forces' education we have one of the most potent possibilities of expounding the British way and purpose in this transition period through which society is moving.
We have asked that the education authorities shall be placed in the same position to Army, Navy and Air Force education as the relative bodies in medicine are placed. I believe that we must have an integration between the Ministry of Education and the various arms of the Forces for education to serve its real purpose. I also believe that other adult organisations interested in adult education, such as the Y.M.C.A. and the T.U.C., which helped during the war to organise these classes, should be consulted when we form a real policy for Army education. For the first time we are really putting this principle of education into a Bill. Although a writer in the "Daily Telegraph" some days ago, said that two of the chief hobby horses of this Government were Army welfare and education, I was not quite able to find out whether he was paying a compliment, or whether it was one of those slight brushes aside, such as we had in the early hours of this morning, when tempers were a little frayed. But on no account must we miss this opportunity. In future, we shall have our county colleges, technical colleges and uni-

versities, and we are taking our young men and women into the forces at an important period. I believe, therefore, as citizens they have rights. Those educational rights must be recognised by the Committee, and, therefore, I ask that we make a reality of educational training for peace-time soldiers whose careers have been forcibly interrupted by inserting this Amendment in the Bill.

8.15 a.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have listened to a very interesting speech on Army education, but I must confess that it appears to me to have been rather academic in its nature, and rather wide of the mark, having regard to the Amendments that have now been made in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that, under the Bill, there would be some women who would be engaged in national service undertakings. That is incorrect. Quite apart from that, these men are to learn their work in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in the short period of one year, and so fit themselves to be of some value in the defence of this country. I must confess it does not seem to me possible, even with all the concertinaing that the Minister of Defence has suggested—and appreciating his efforts to drive through and make people work hard—that there will be much room in that short space of time for much in the way of Army education, however, desirable it may be.

Mr. Harold Davies: I do not ask any more than is implied in Clause 10, but we ask that whatever, is implied in that Clause shall be implemented through well-known recognised authorities in education, namely, the Ministry of Education and adult organisations already in existence, and the T.U.C., to which hon. Members opposite agreed during the war, since there were T.U.C. representatives on the Advisory Councils.

Mr. Bellenger: I am in considerable sympathy, and indeed almost in complete harmony, with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg), who moved the Amendment. I regret to say that I shall not be able to accept the Amendment, and I hope he will agree with the reasons which I shall give him. I agree with what he said about the purpose he had in mind, and the purpose which so many others also


have in mind. Indeed, I think it will be agreed that the Army have given a leadership in this matter to soldiers, under the inspiration and guidance of the ex-Adjutant-General, Sir Ronald Adams. But I think my hon. and gallant Friend put his finger on a very important spot when he said that, owing to the reduction of the period of compulsory service from 18 to 12 months, there would be limitations in different directions in regard to what hon. Members put forward from different sides of the Committee yesterday afternoon. There is no doubt about it—my hon. and gallant Friend realises it—if training is to be effective during that 12 months, it has to be more intensive.
Nevertheless, I am glad to assure the Committee and my hon. and gallant Friend—who takes such a great interest in this matter and who, indeed, himself played such a prominent part in Army education during and after the war—that the Service Departments are determined to fulfil their responsibilities under the Education Act. However, in some respects it will be difficult to do that overseas. My hon. and gallant Friend knows the reason why. There are no local education authorities overseas, and therefore it will be impossible for us to consult them in the same way that we are to consult the local education authorities here. It is our hope that the Ministry of Education, particularly the local education authorities, will be of great assistance to the Services, in providing that continued education to which individuals are entitled under the Education Act, by affording almost similar facilities to soldiers, sailors and airmen in this country who will be in close proximity to institutions where their educational instruction can be given.
I would only mention in passing that under the Education Act continued education ceases to be compulsory after the last term in which the individual reaches the age of 18. Nevertheless, the Army and, indeed, the other two Services, are to institute—we have already instituted—a certain amount of compulsory education for different types of individuals needing it in the Services. We shall be presented with the Regular soldier and the National Service man, for whom we are legislating in this Bill. The two types will be somewhat different and will require different treatment in the educa-

tional instruction which they get. I think it is quite fair for the Services to lay down, at any rate in the time that they pay for, that men shall undergo a certain amount of compulsory education. Particularly does that apply in the case of the illiterates—and there are a certain number coming into the Services—and the semi-illiterates. As I outlined in my speech on the Army Estimates a few weeks ago, we have a rather ambitious plan in the Army which, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it will be difficult for us to implement fully. We have to get specialist instructors. As I said in my Army Estimates speech, we are now busily engaged in recruiting—

Lord John Hope: Could the Minister say at this point whether this education will be permeated by Socialist propaganda as it was during the war?

Mr. Bellenger: I think that is an un-jusified question to put to me. The Committee knows my views about the manner in which educational knowledge should be imparted. All I can say, if the noble Lord really wants an answer to that question, is that we shall endeavour to give the broadest, widest and soundest education—

Mr. Pickthorn: In 12 months.

Mr. Bellenger: —academic and practical, that we can possibly do with the instructors who will be available to us. We shall look for very high educational qualifications in those administering the scheme, and officers will have to have very high educational qualifications before they can hold a Commission in the Army Education Corps. Overseas, we shall have to depend for this further education on the colleges and educational centres set up by the Army itself in the form of formation colleges, which, I must point out, are running down at present. Therefore, it will not be easy to get the co-operation of the Ministry of Education in these matters, although I hope we shall have the assistance of the national organisations interested in adult education.
I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that it is unnecessary for his Amendment to be incorporated in this Clause when I tell him the reason. it is undesirable to include these words because it is unnecessary to provide by


legislation for the consultation by one Minister of the Crown with another because it is inconsistent with the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility. I do not know if that is entirely understood, but the more realistic and practical objections to the inclusion of this Amendment are that we shall not be able fully to carry this out overseas, and for some time these national service men will be training overseas. The Service departments are in close consultation with the Ministry of Education in the preparation of the plans which we are making, and, indeed, speaking for my own Department, plans which we have prepared have received the approval of the Ministry of Education. I mentioned something about these plans rather fully in my speech on the Army Estimates, and I do not propose to say more at this hour in the morning. The Service departments, under the co-ordinating guidance of the Minister for Defence, are taking very seriously this matter of education in the narrow period of one year which the National Service men will undertake. My hon. and gallant Friend knows about the education scheme in the Army, for he himself took part in the development of it when he was an education officer in the Army during the war years. I hope that he will find it convenient to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Bing: Education is part of military training. The Army now does not consist of a lot of Guardsmen on sentry duty, and in order to be an efficient soldier today, a man must be an educated soldier. I will just conclude by saying this: we all hope that this Debate will be completed as rapidly as possible, but, if I may snatch one of those fleeting and mixed metaphors with which the Secretary of State so much enlivened the Debate earlier, I would say that we on this side of the Committee, if we smell a rat, will nip it in the bud.

8.30 a.m.

Lord John Hope: Before the hon. Member sits down, will he not agree that the Guardsmen to whom he referred were not a lot of uneducated, stupid men, but were fine, loyal, and most intelligent? I do not think the sort of remark is worthy of him.

Mr. Bing: The noble Lord misunderstands me. It is because I think they were fine men, and did so well in the

war, that I deplore that there should be a movement to compel them, instead of devoting themselves to other things, to concentrate on blanco-ing and parades.

Brigadier Peto: Having spent some time trying to educate men in the Army, particularly during intensive training periods, and found it difficult, I am glad that this Amendment has been resisted. The cutting down of the period of national service from 18 to 12 months will require, during that shorter period, intensive training which will not allow any great space of time in the daily work for education. I would like also to refer to a quotation used by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). I am not sure that I have got it right. I understood him to say that in 1919 it was stated that as the results of education gradually unfolded themselves, they would be seen to be both surprising and unpredictable.

Mr. Harold Davies: I was quoting Colonel Lord Gorell when he said—and he did much for education, as the hon. Member knows—
When sufficient time has elapsed to enable the events of the war to be seen in their true perspective, the rise and development of the educational movement among the Armed Forces will stand out as one of the most striking and unpredictable.

Brigadier Peto: That was very nearly what I said. I said, "surprising and unpredictable." I think that the noble Lord the Member for North Midlothian (Lord John Hope) was right, and that we found one of those most striking and unpredictable results in the last election. It was entirely due to that Socialist education, inculcated by A.B.C.A. and other welfare societies, in the Army throughout the war that a large number of the Forces voted as they did in the last election.

Mr. Mikardo: I hope I shall not make myself unpopular if I ask the Committee to stop considering the general question of education, and to start considering the Amendment, because it seems to me that most of the arguments have been quite irrelevant to the Amendment. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not mind if I suggest that as a matter of fact he gave a lead to the irrelevance which the Debate has taken. He resisted the Amendment, after saying he was very sympathetic to it. He is developing to a fine art the business of


being sympathetic to things which he subsequently turns down. He resisted it by putting forward three separate arguments. The first, to which he was led by hon. Members opposite, was that the quantity of Army education cannot be very important. The quantity is not in question.
If the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Brigadier Peto) and his friends want to get rid of education, their course is not to resist the Amendment, but to resist Clause 10 altogether, because that is the Clause, not the Amendment, which provides for education. The question is not how much education one can get in 12 months' service, or how much of the time should be devoted to education, or what the content of education should be. The question is simply whether the Service Departments shall run such education as is provided under Clause 10 on their own initiative, or whether there shall be a statutory obligation on them to consult the Minister of Education in a more formal way than the general consultation provided on constitutional lines, as described by my right hon. Friend. The question is not related to the fact that there is only 12 months or that there will not be much of it. If there is to be less of it, it is all the more important that what there is should be good. If it is the view of hon. Members that the Ministry of Education know something about education, and, therefore, can continue to make education good, they ought on those grounds to support the Amendment.
The second argument is that in any event all local education authorities can' not be consulted. But the point about local education authorities is covered in Subsection (1) of Clause 10. We are considering an Amendment to Subsection (2), which does not mention local education authorities. The question is not whether they should be consulted or not at home or abroad which is already dealt with by a Subsection we have passed, but whether, in defining the form and content of education, the Ministry of Eduction and voluntary bodies shall be consulted, or not.
Finally, the argument was used that constitutionally Ministers automatically consult with one another. In the first place, that only covers half the Amendment, which calls for consultation with

voluntary bodies interested in education. In the second place, it is common form in Acts to provide specifically, where there is a clear and specific case as there is here, for consultation between one Minister and another. Clearly there is nothing wrong with that. Whatever form of education, as provided for in Clause 10 of the Bill, ought to be worked in consultation with the Minister of Education and I cannot see that any reason has been adduced against that.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am so anxious for breakfast that I do not feel I can deal with this subject as it deserves, because it is an immensely large subject. I largely agree with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), perhaps not with everything he said, and particularly with his strictures on the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State for War opened the constitutional question and the whole question of compulsory education. There are many hon. Members of this Committee, of whom apparently the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is one—as there are many people outside—who are always willing to put their names to the bottom of any bit of paper so long as it contains one of certain words at the top. "Youth" is one pf those words; "peace" used to be one, but has rather gone out of fashion now; and "education" has always been one of those words. There are people who are always prepared, as long as anything contains the word "education," to think it must be a jolly good thing, and that they had better have their name on the bottom of it. There really is a great new principle involved here, and I am not at all sure which side I am on—[Interruption]—and I am sure hon. Members opposite are not sure which side they are on in this matter, because I am sure most of them have not yet perceived it. When I point it out to them I hope they will tell me on which side they are, because that will help me to make up my mind.

Mr. Bing: Mr. Bing rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: No, I am going to finish this paragraph. Under the law at present, education is compulsory by Statute up to the age of 15, and continued up to the age of 18. Beyond that, presumably, people are free from compulsory education, but they become subject to compulsory military service. Now, under this


Clause, they will get compulsory education under that compulsory military service. It may be that that is a good thing, but it is an extension of compulsory education, which has not, I think, been previously considered. I will be quite honest with hon. Members opposite. If I, myself, were back at the age of 21 or 22, when I went into the Army I should have resented far more than I resented the other things that happened to me, compulsory education—

Colonel Wigg: I do not think the hon. Member falls in the class of those who are being compulsorily educated in the Army, because they are total illiterates. I do not think the hon. Member falls into that class.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not sure whether that is the sort of thing which is thought to be witty in the upper ranks of the Army Education Corps. A point which has not previously come to the attention of the public or of this Committee is that apparently by a side wind in this Bill there is to be compulsory education at a higher age level than before.

Mr. Harold Davies: It is there now.

Colonel Wigg: It always has been.

Mr. Pickthorn: There has not been compulsory military service before the war.

Mr. Callaghan: Of course there has.

Mr. Pickthorn: No, there has not. This is the beginning of systematic conscription in this country which we are now discussing, so the thing is new. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It does not really matter how much noise hon. Members opposite make, the facts and arguments remain the same. For the first time we are having compulsory military service in this country in time of peace and on a semi-permanent basis; and by a side wind there is to be compulsory education at a higher age level than it has ever been before. I think that is a very important decision, and I am surprised we have not had it discussed more fully and at greater length.
The right hon. Gentleman said the organisations were mentioned in the Bill. It does not mention by specifying organisations at all. It only indicates the sort of organisation which is required to be consulted. I, myself, find that very dangerous. It was suggested that the T.U.C. ought to be one.

Mr. Harold Davies: They were consulted all through the war.

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not say they had not been. I am not sure that was a very good thing; nor am I sure it was a very bad thing. I have not said it is a good or a bad thing. Ought the Communist Party to be consulted? Ought the Primrose League to be consulted? Ought the Church of England Education Society to be consulted?

8.45 a.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: Cambridge University might be consulted.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not know that it would come in under this form of words. It exists, but it does not follow that it would come in under the form of words used in the Amendment.

Colonel Wigg: Yes.

Mr. Pickthorn: I was not quite sure whether it did.

Colonel Wigg: Colonel Wigg rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: No, I cannot give way again; it is breakfast time. If the Amendment were that the Ministry of Education ought to be consulted I should think that they ought to be consulted. On this point of consulting the Ministry of Education, I should like to give a word of advice to the Secretary of State for War. I think there is a small circulating library in superior constitutional arguments, which must be a kind of club among upper civil servants or Ministerial private secretaries. The theory that there is something unconstitutional, contrary to the doctrine of Cabinet homogeneity, or joint responsibility, in provision for consultation between two Ministers, by statutory direction from the King and Parliament, has been used more than once before. I think that is absolutely nonsense. It has been used by various Ministers, who have read it out, rather surprisedly, as the right hon. Gentleman did, from their briefs. Ministers should "vet" arguments that are put to them, and the circulating library might be told that this one might be allowed to go out of use.

Mr. S. Silverman: I would like to express my astonishment at the speech that the Committee has just heard from a representative of one of our leading educational institutions. It was not worth sitting up all night to hear that speech. So far as I followed him, the hon. Member said,


correctly—at any rate, in the end—that we were now having compulsory military service for the first time in peacetime on a semi-permanent basis. Then he said, as though it was an additional evil—

Mr. Pickthorn: Mr. Pickthorn rose—

Mr. S. Silverman: No, I will not give way. I heard what the hon. Member said, and I am entitled to draw my inferences from it. If I draw the wrong ones perhaps he will have a chance to correct me during another all night Sitting, if he wishes to do so. The hon. Member said, "First of all, you do one unpleasant thing by compelling people to have military training." The rest of us regard the education which would follow on compulsory enlistment as one of the alleviations of the dreadful necessity under which most Members of the Committee seem to find themselves at the moment, but the hon. Member regarded it as an additional evil, to be approached with great suspicion. He said that it was quite wrong that there should come in on a side wind, as he described it, an extension of the principle of compulsory education. I should have thought he would have been wholly in favour of extending education either by side wind, front wind, back wind or any other wind where it could be done. Most other people would have been, and I think it is most astonishing and alarming that Cambridge University, with its long traditions of culture and civilisation and general development of human culture, should send in these days as a representative to the House of Commons, one who has such a reactionary, antediluvian view of education as that.

Mr. H. Strauss: I do not think that hon. Gentlemen are likely to advance education by insulting the universities or by making rather foolish zoo noises. I find myself largely in agreement with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who seemed to me to address himself to the Amendment, and with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) he was the only one to do so. What astonished -me was that some hon. Members opposite seemed to think that some very valuable services would be performed by this Amendment. I think it would have been much better if they had taken a little more trouble with it. Even if they felt that it was necessary to insert these words,

I do not think that it was necessary to strike out the words, "so far as may be practicable." It seems to me most questionable to leave those words out of the Bill. I think there is something to be said for those words remaining.
My next criticism of the Amendment is that it has been assumed by nearly everybody that the Amendment made clear the persons by whom the determination was to be made. There is to be a determination of the nature of the further education, but they do not say by whom. Who is to be consulted? The Amendment does not say. If no other words were put in, it might be construed as meaning that it is the Service authorities that are to determine in consultation with the Minister of Education. I do not think that there is very much in the thing either way. It is clear that the Secretary of State in dealing with education would be in a poor position in this House if he were not in consultation with his right hon. Friend. Although I agree with regard to the constitutional question with the senior Burgess for Cambridge University, this is more a matter of draftsmanship. I think there is something to be said for the modern practice of omitting the express requirement of consultation from the Statute. Only in cases where there has been a statutory requirement in another Act for a Minister to give a certificate or something of that kind, has it been the modern practice to insert an express requirement of consultation with a particular Minister. In the absence of such a statutory requirement in another Act, it has been the modern practice, for which there is something to be said as a matter of draftsmanship, not to put in consultations. The words which refer to other organisations interested in adult education are vague. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) meant that Cambridge University would clearly be included in the words as they stand, I am bound to say that I think he is saying something which is arguable. The words are vague, in spite of what has been said.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member will know that the words are:
national organisations interested in adult education.
Cambridge University is undoubtedly an organisation, and it is undoubtedly a national institution.

Mr. H. Strauss: I gather I was correct in thinking that that was the hon. Member's view. With respect, I only say that it is not mine, and it is very doubtful if a court of law will ever determine the point, so it may be a very long time before we know which is right. I do not think these words are particularly valuable, and if it is pretended that they represent a very great advance, they do not. If it is a fact that these men cannot get much education in this single year, I do not think we perform a very good service by pretending that they can, but having said that, I certainly agree with the general desire that the best possibilities should he open to the men. If the right hon. Gentleman has the cause of the education of these men at heart, and I give him credit for that, I believe he would do better for the moment not to consult the Minister of Education so much as the President of the Board of Trade, to see whether he cannot obtain a more sensible allocation of paper and other raw materials for hooks. The men in the Army could get very much more education, have their lot very much alleviated and have a great deal done for their happiness and learning, if they were supplied freely with the books so many of them would like to have. I hope that these practical steps will be taken rather than some of the other steps that have been suggested.
There is one branch of Army education with which I came into contact and by which I was very much impressed, and that was an Army Formation College which I had the privilege of addressing. It was without any doubt the most thrillingly alive audience I have ever addressed. One thing about it was that those people were doing a whole-time course at their own request. I do not suppose anything on those lines is possible during that year. I hope that none of us will exaggerate the possibilities of this Clause or this Amendment. I have no great feeling about the Amendment one way or the other. The effect is much less than it might be for the reasons I have given, but I believe there are certain practical steps which might be taken. Some hon. Members opposite laugh when one mentions the question of books, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to do something in regard to them.

9.0 a.m.

Wing-Commander Millington: I think I quote the Home Secretary correctly when

I say that in a speech in the country which he made some three months ago, said that the significant thing about education is that those who have not had as much education as they would have liked for themselves are the only people who make for educational progress, because they wrest for those who are to succeed them further education which has been denied to themselves from those who have had bigger educational advantages than themselves. It seems to me that in these considerations of education, although attempts have been made to look at this Amendment objectively by hon. Members on both sides, it is clear that there is a difference of approach on the Socialist and Conservative Benches in that the resistance to this Amendment has come from those who have had probably a better education themselves—

Mr. Stanley: I wish to ask for information, since I have been out of the Committee for a time. I understood the Secretary of State for War was resisting this Amendment. Is he not a Socialist?

Wing-Commander Millington: I think the right hon. Gentleman answered his question himself when he said that he had not been present for some time. In fact, there was more resistance to the content of this Amendment from speeches of querulous Conservatives who, in fact, said that they could not make up their minds about this Amendment one way or another, than there was in the statement of the Secretary of State, who said that for technical reasons he would not be able to accept this, but that he had great sympathy with the content of the Amendment. We have to consider in this Clause and Amendment what is the purpose of Service education. The purpose of the Bill is not just to give occasional bits of stray information, occasional lectures administered, if I quote the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Brigadier Peto) correctly, by A.B.C.A. and other welfare organisations; the purpose of Army education is to use the period when men are compelled to give military service to their country to help them to develop their own potential and to help them to become more complete citizens. That is why I say to the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that if this is a new principle of extending compulsory education, I am entirely in favour of it, because I am entirely in favour of


making it possible for people to have as much education as it is humanly possible for them to absorb. The purpose of education is to see that whilst these young men are under the control of the State they shall be made better citizens, better people, capable of playing a bigger part in the life of their nation when they leave the Services.
What we have in mind in the Amendment is, by what agency can these men get the best educational services whilst they are doing their period of compulsory service? The Secretary of State takes the view that he has an implicit obligation to consult with his colleague the Minister of Education, and that inside the Army they are working hard to broaden the basis of Army education and to give the best service using Army personnel. We believe that there should be in this Bill a statutory obligation upon the Minister to consult with the Minister of Education and with certain bodies which were consulted on this question during the recent war, in order to give the best possible education that it is within our power to give to these fellows during their period of compulsory service. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will see fit to withdraw his objection.

Mr. Stanley: I must confess that I speak in this Debate under two difficulties. The first is that I have have broken my glasses, with the unfortunate result that I can no longer see clearly the faces of hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come over here."] The second is that I am afraid, owing to a short absence for cultural refreshment, I missed the answer from the Front Bench. I am not quite sure from whom it came, but the fact that a simple Amendment which was started some hour and a half ago is still running, makes me feel that the Ministry of Labour for the moment is not in charge, and that we are back to the Service Departments, unaided this time by the Law Officer. I was surprised to return to this Chamber to find that this Amendment was still running and had, apparently, been resisted by one of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I cannot see any harm in it. I listened with great care to the speeches of both my hon. Friends, and came to the conclusion that they saw neither any harm nor any good in it, and for that reason were undecided

as to the best action to take, I share that point of view. I see no harm, and I see little practical good.
I cannot see that the course of Army education will be altered in the very least whether this Amendment is passed or not, but certainly the Amendment is really expressing a pious hope, with which I am in agreement. I cannot think what argument has been put up by the right hon. Gentleman to turn it down. He cannot be frightened of consultation with his colleague. I have had a long and well-spent legislative life and have passed innumerable Bills in which I was forced to consult with a colleague. It never did me any harm—and it never did the colleague any good. I think this is the last occasion of all on which to be frightened of consultation. We heard yesterday afternoon that the Minister of Defence had consulted with the Chiefs of Staff before he reduced 18 months to 12. If that is what is meant by consultation, the Secretary of State for War need have no fear that it will in any way impair his authority. Nor am I frightened of expressing on paper the necessity for some kind of association with the organisations interested in education. I do not think, perhaps, that the Amendment is very happily framed. It leaves a doubt as to what organisations might be included and what might be excluded, but I cannot imagine any form of education of people over 18 years of age being carried out except in association with, at any rate, certain of the bodies who are engaged in education.
My recollection is that when in the early days of 1940—hon. Members will remember it was in the days of the so-called "phoney war," when hundreds of thousands of troops in this country were left with really little occupation, when training was difficult owing to lack of material and when it was essential to provide something which would interest them and keep up their morale—the first thing we did was to get into touch with a number of these national organisations. We called them to our aid before we were able to build up the elaborate machinery which was subsequently recognised. Therefore, I must say that had I been the right hon. Gentleman, I should not have been frightened of this Amendment, on either of the two counts. I should not in the least mind consulting with the Minister of Education, knowing perfectly well that, having consulted him, I could do exactly the


opposite to his advice, and I should not mind being associated with these national organisations, knowing that if I were going to take up educational work at all, I should have to enter into it with one or other of the organisations concerned.
Had I been replying from the Front Bench, my only possible reason for refusing this Amendment would have been that, in the circumstances, it was not only no good having it, but it was no good having the Clause at all. We must all face the fact that, whatever one might have hoped for in the way of education, either in the technical or literary sense, the reduction from 18 months to one year, and the terms in which it was defended today by the Minister of Defence, make it obvious that, in fact, during that year, there is going to be no time left for such education as hon. Members have in mind. We are told that both the recruits and those training them have got to give up all frills and luxuries, and that they have got to get down to it. There is to be no 40-hour week for them. I cannot conceive that in the atmosphere of bustle and hustle which the Minister of Defence suggested, and which alone, he said, would justify the reduction made, there will either be the time for any worth while educational attempt, or that the unfortunate recruit will have enough mental or physical energy left to prosper from it. If we are to retain in the Bill a Clause which, I am afraid, has now been made by the decision taken a dead letter, I see no objection whatsoever to adding to it this perfectly harmless, if not very practical, Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: I feel that I cannot any longer carry on this unequal battle. Pressed as L am from the front and from my rear, I have to beat a retreat. Therefore, I am going to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to relieve me of my predicament by withdrawing his Amendment, on the undertaking that, between now and the Report stage, I will look into the matter very closely. My only hesitation about accepting the Amendment is that I still want to retain the words "as far as practicable," and the reason why I want to retain them is because I do not want to saddle myself with something which I know I may not be able to carry out. At the present time I am consulting with the Minister of Education, and my officials are consulting with their opposite numbers in that Ministry. We

are consulting with the adult educational organisations, and my hon Friend the Under-Secretary of State is chairman of a very important educational committee—an advisory committee to myself—consisting, as it does, of some of the most eminent educational authorities in this country. So that, in fact, I am really doing what my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to do. I hope, therefore, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

9.15 a.m.

Colonel Wigg: The first thing I must do is to congratulate the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), who has a great reputation for being a perfect after-dinner speaker, on having shown this morning that he can manage just as well after breakfast. This Debate has been wholly worth while in that we have heard the representatives of Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) confess that they know nothing whatever about adult education. For the information of the arrogant Member the senior Burgess for Cambridge University, there is a gentleman of the name of Hickson representing Cambridge University on the Central Advisory Council, who draws a considerable sum in expenses, and the university which he represents has a direct responsibility for this scheme. The same thing applies to every one of the English universities. It is worth while for those misguided people who returned the two hon. Members to know that those hon. Members know absolutely nothing about this very important subject.

Mr. H. Strauss: Mr. H. Strauss rose—

Colonel Wigg: Having said that, I gladly agree to withdraw this Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and I hope the Secretary of State will persuade his Service colleagues to do as much for their Services as he promises to do for the Army.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to stand in the way of the amicable arrangement which was being come to, but I think the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) has tried us a little too much in making these charges and then smartly jumping to end in such a way that there could be no comment on them. I do not know what relevance his view of me, or my view of him, has to the


subject of this Debate. I assure him that I have taken a good deal of trouble to learn about and to help with adult education, and it is entirely untrue to say that I have confessed I know nothing about it.

Mr. H. Strauss: During my speech I thought the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley wished to intervene, and, therefore, I offered to sit down in order that he might do so. He then said "No, go on; I can come in afterwards." I did not know then, as I know now, and as the Committee knows, that his purpose was to make some false accusations against me and then refuse to give me an opportunity to reply. I never at any point said I knew nothing about adult education. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can take that view about me if he likes. Any insult from him can only do me honour—[Laughter]—and, despite the silly guffaws of the putative Prime Minister, the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), I believe the benches opposite contain a great many Members who sincerely desire to improve education in the Army and elsewhere. Others are constantly paying lip service to education, but insulting any ideas which do not coincide with their own. If they think they are serving the cause of learning, or education, or knowledge, or anything else, they are the victims of an illusion, and not a generous illusion, and I leave them to their folly.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Information to be furnished by education authorities.)

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, after "about," to insert:
the educational attainments of.
I think this is the best peg on which to ask a question. I have not attempted any research in the matter, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether this formula is anything like common form, or whether it is something comparatively new? I am a little surprised that it should be thought necessary. Very frequently I am asked for information of all sorts and kinds about ex-students of mine, and sometimes very embarrassingly, going many years back, and so on. I should not think that any Government

Department or respectable inquirer ever had any difficulty in getting information from educational organisations and persons in charge of them, and officials employed in doing their work. But I am a little surprised that it is necessary to have this formula. If I am told that it is something like common form, or that, although new, experience has shown that it is necessary to be able, by compulsion on some people, to obtain it—if the Minister of Labour tells me either of those two things, I will take his word for it. Even in that case, I would ask him to consider whether my Amendment may not possibly be worth looking at. As the Clause stands—the Attorney-General will correct me if I am misconstruing—it seems to put on a duty not only to give the information one has, but the information one may be expected to be able to get hold of. That, I think, is rather a difficult thing, and may drive people rather a long way. Secondly, apparently the information which one has, or can get hold of, and is compelled to give, is about persons receiving or who have received education, without any limitation. I wonder whether that is considered necessary and right? It may be that my words are too narrow. Personally, I have never for a moment refused or hesitated to tell all sorts of things about a chap, assuming there was no privilege involved. I should have thought there never was any difficulty in getting people to do that, but, if we are to put a statutory command on them to do that, there seems rather a strong argument for the view that educational attainments ought to be the limit of the field of inquiry.
I have heard it suggested—although this would not have occurred to me—that there might be a political danger here, that people might be asked to disclose their political background, opinions or prejudices. That might have unfortunate effects. I notice that during the war practically all my Communist pupils got high situations in M.I. If I were to be forced to disclose the Communist tendencies of any ex-pupils of mine, it might be that M.I. would be populated entirely by Communists, and I should have thought that was carrying the thing a bit too far. However that may be, I ask the Minister to consider whether he really wants to be able to put compulsion upon us to give him, not only what we know without


doubt about the educational attainments of our pupils, but also anything we know or can find out in any other connection at all. If so much as that is needed, it ought to be explained to us why.

Mr. Isaacs: I can give the hon. Member the information for which he asks in both respects. First, he asked if this was common form. This Clause is reproduced from an identical provision in Section 10 of the Military Training Act. Therefore, the Clause as it stands is in use, and so far as I am aware, there have been no complaints about its restrictions. With reference to the hon. Member's Amendment, that the inquiries should be restricted to educational attainments, that would be restrictive. He himself suggested that he hardly liked to have registrative statutory demands. On the other hand, that would be a statutory restriction. It is true that it would be possible for all sorts of undesirable questions to be put. But I think we must trust our Government Departments, whatever may be the Government of the day—[Interruption.] Has the experience of hon. Members opposite been that they could not trust their Governments? I am just wondering if the hon. Member could put forward any of these questions in a form which would indicate they were undesirable inquiries. I am trying to answer the question of the hon. Member in the spirit in which he put them to me. He asked me if I could give him the information.
The two things we specially want to have power to ask are these. We want to check up on the registration particulars of the individual. We may be in the process of calling somebody up and find there are two people of the same name, or similar names and registration numbers, and we are not quite sure which is which. Therefore, we must ask them for their registration numbers and their names, and be able to check up on the home addresses. They are the things we might frequently want to ask. We do not want to find ourselves faced with a restriction in regard to their educational attainments, and have the educational authority asking, perhaps quite properly, what the information is for and then refusing to give it, although I do not think they would refuse. As the hon. Member has said, he has given a good deal of information which he need not have given. I believe

he gave that information because he thought it would help his pupils.

Mr. Pickthorn: Not always.

Mr. Isaacs: In spite of that, I do not think the hon. Member would go out of his way to injure one of his pupils by the information he gave. Any information he gave would be for the purpose of helping them.

Mr. Pickthorn: Since the right hon. Gentleman does me the honour of raising this point, let me say that I have always taken the view that it is in the general interest of everyone that one should speak on these matters with extreme candour. Therefore, I have always put forward the worst points of my pupils and not tried to hide them, and it has not always been to the credit or advantage of any pupil.

Mr. Isaacs: In view of what I have said in regard to the general purpose of this Clause, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Military Training Act as containing a precedent for this Clause. Of course, his information about that is entirely accurate. But was not that Act suspended by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, and, in fact, has any use been made of that Section in the Military Training Act, 1939? If I am right, on looking at the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, it would appear that that particular provision was only in force for a very few months. I suggest we ought to know to what extent that Clause was used before passing a Clause in this form which, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, really goes much wider than he desires for his own purposes? I do not know whether the Minister could answer that question. I should be grateful if he would.

9.30 a.m.

Mr. Stephen: I am a little doubtful about this Clause. I listened to the Minister with interest, and I gather that the information to be got from the local education authority will have particular regard to the registration number or address. Is an educational institution the proper source from which to get such information? I should not have thought so; I should have thought that it would


be the registration authority which would be the one to supply it, and I wonder if the Minister was correct in what he said? I really rose to refer to the suggestion that, when an application is made to any authority for information, a copy of it should be sent to the person concerned, so that he may see what is being said about him. I think it is important. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember the many struggles we had in the past on the subject of information asked for from employers in connection with unemployment insurance, and the strong demands that were made that the applicant should get a copy of the certificate sent by the employer. I cannot see why the soldier, in these circumstances, if he is having a report made upon him by any educational authority, by a former headmaster, or the principal of a university, should not have that information supplied to him. His whole career may be at stake.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Mr. Ness Edwards indicated dissent.

Mr. Stephen: The Parliamentary Secretary indicates that his career may not be at stake, but though I would like to take this head-wagging as concurrence with what I say, I would like something more definite—I would like a promise that the information will go to the soldier. I say that from experience; there were several young people from my district who did not get the promotion to which we thought they were entitled, or did not get the entry to some institution to which we thought they were entitled to go, and it may be that it was because some such reports were made about them. There was one case of a brilliant young student who was a constituent of mine and who was in the Royal Engineers. I could not understand why he did not get a commission, but perhaps some application had been made to an institution and some professor made an adverse report. I believe in having the safeguard. If it is only a matter of little importance, why continue it in the Bill? It may mean a little extra clerical work, but that is really of little importance. There will be no harm in supplying a young soldier with a copy, so that he will know there is no dossier being prepared in regard to him which may be used to his disadvantage.

Lord John Hope: As the Minister of Labour has been the most helpful of all

his colleagues throughout this Debate, it seems almost ungenerous to go on hammering him on this specific point. But there is something about the wording, as the Clause stands, which I do not like. I agree that the Minister is the last person who would wish to take undue advantage of these powers, but, as has happened with other Acts this Government have passed, there is implicit in these words the power for great evil. The Minister may be promoted any day now. He may perhaps become Minister of Defence, or Minister of Fuel and Power. We do not know who will come after him. I ask him to consider again whether he cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, which does produce a very definite safeguard against flagrant misuse of these powers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, even at this mellow hour in the morning, should adopt such a worn-out argument. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the view that the powers being taken are extremely wide, and then proceeded to say that it did not matter because they would be wisely and humanly administered. That is almost the oldest argument in the world, and it is almost the worst argument. It is not an argument at all to say that he wants certain powers on the understanding that he will never use them. That makes a mockery of the whole process of legislation. It also proceeds on the assumption that Ministers are not only omniscient but are eternal. The time will come when the right hon. Gentleman will not occupy his present office. It may be that he will be replaced by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

The Chairman: I think that we had better have the hon. Member's remarks on the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I much regret if I have not made clear my point in reply to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is that the Minister responsible will always use these admittedly excessive powers wisely and humanly. In my submission, it is material to point out in reply to that argument, that the time will come when there will be other Ministers. We are not objecting to giving the right hon. Gentleman excessive powers, but to giving to any Minister who may be a Minister during the currency of this


Measure, powers which are admitted to be excessive. My noble Friend has said, with truth, that the Minister's attitude has been reasonable. Surely, with all the reserves that are behind him, he could evolve some form of words which will give him the necessary particulars to which he has referred. I do not think anyone wants to deny him those particulars, while not handing over to him potentially dangerous powers, however wisely they may be administered by him. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman sees the danger and that he would be the last to subject everybody in the country to this potential inquisitorial process. I hope that he will introduce, either on this or on some later stage, some form of words to do what we all want, and so replace these wildly excessive and wholly unnecessary powers.

Mr. Linstead: I wish to underline the remarks of my hon. Friend. Any Clause in which wide powers are being taken by the Executive are very much the concern of every hon. Member, as it is our duty to protect the citizen against such increase of power in the hands of the Executive. The Clause requires careful scrutiny, but I am reassured by the indication that the Minister has given of the reasons why he wants the powers. The danger is of their being used to extract information about opinions rather than about facts. I gather that the Minister expects them to be used to obtain information about facts, and there can be no objection to the sort of factual information of which he spoke. When it comes to matters of opinion, character and behaviour, we get on to very dangerous ground. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the matter and will put in words to safeguard the point.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Amendment is entitled to be given an adequate answer. The Joint University Recruiting Board has been functioning for a long time under a similar Section in the Military Training Act, 1939, and getting information on which to carry out those functions. It consists of Chancellors of the Universities and a representative of the Ministry of Labour. Information is supplied by the Chancellors and records are kept by the Ministry. The board gets the deferment account of the man and the terms of his deferment. If he fails his examination, the board re-examines his case and

report to the Ministry, and the man is called up. That is one side.
9.45 a.m.
Then there is the other side—the men who were in the Forces. As is well known to the Committee, they have the right to a number of the places in the Universities. When they apply for a Class B release, we must have confirmation of the fact that they have really been attending the university to which they want to return. This has been operating since 1939 and has been perfectly open and above-board. There has not been a single case of complaint, to my knowledge, that information has been obtained which ought not to have been obtained. In those circumstances I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Linstead: Is this not wider in the sense that it will cover a large number of additional institutions? The example given by the Parliamentary Secretary was of the University Board only, and this will obviously cover every secondary school if the country, if need be.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure hon. Members on both sides will recognise the fact that we have discussed wider deferment for students in a wider category. We have brought in technical schools and we have said that deferment for apprentices in certain cases shall be conditional upon the attendance at technical schools, so that it shall be a real apprenticeship, It will be appreciated, therefore, that we have to go slightly wider in the type of institutions from which we require information, in order to get a fair working of the provisions that have been operating already.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I am sure the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are seeking to meet the Committee in every way, and I only intervene because this is a matter which, in various forms, has caused a good deal of general interest—the general increase in the desire of Governments to get information about young people for various purposes. As a parallel example I would quote the Innes Report on Juvenile Education, which has caused a good deal of interest in many quarters, where similar provisions are made for information to be given about boys without an opportunity for the parents to be present and without the


boy being given knowledge of it. Obviously, so long as the information is used in the right way, there is no danger. Incidentally, the picture drawn by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Chancellors of the Universities meeting the Minister to give information about their pupils was, I thought, rather fanciful. Imagine Lord Baldwin, Lord Halifax or Sir John Orr doing that. I think myself that a boy's school record is. a thing which would be much better left to die when he leaves school, instead of letting it pursue him as a kind of bad dossier all through his life because some schoolmaster has written it. What is the purpose of a school report? It is not a report to the authorities, it is a report to the parents. The only object of a school report is to tell the parents what his child is doing in order that they may bring their influence to bear. I think the Parliamentary Secretary might look at this before the Report stage.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Mr. Ness Edwards indicated assent.

Mr. Macmillan: We are necessarily becoming a highly-organised and planned State and we understand the need for conscription and so on, but I hope we shall try to maintain the principle that when anything is said about anybody, he knows what is said, whether he is a young man or an old man. The second principle is that in the case of anyone who has not grown up, the people who have the responsibility for him—the parents—should have full knowledge of what is said, and nobody else. If we maintain those two principles in the regulations, we shall be able to work this system without injury, but I fear that if we create a feeling that under State discipline dossiers are built up which follow people through their lives, there will be much resentment and a danger of people feeling that they are being treated too much as pieces of furniture to be moved about, and not enough as living human beings. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary can meet that point before the Report stage, either by some Amendment or in the regulations to be made.

Mr. Isaacs: I very readily give that undertaking. I entirely agree that we do not want private dossiers about anybody knocking about. I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary will not think that we have been wasting the time of the Committee by discussing a matter which was not proper to the Debate. I am sure that I am not overstepping my authority by saying that my hon. Friends and I very much appreciate the way in which this subject has been discussed, unlike some of the other subjects. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, after "of," to insert:
subsection (2) of section ten.
This Amendment, I think, goes a considerable way to explain itself without my having to take up the time of the Committee in doing so. I must apologise to you, Major Milner, and to the Committee for being absent from the previous discussion on this Clause. I am moving this Amendment because I feel that it is one to which the Government might be able to give consideration of a not unfavourable character.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment because it seeks to withdraw the authority which has already been given to the Minister in regard to obtaining the information. If the Amendment were accepted, it would mean that the information which we are authorised to obtain, as the result of the withdrawal of the previous Amendment, would be denied to us. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Williams: I must confess that I was a little suspicious about this matter. As the Committee will see, my name is not associated with the Amendment. As far as I am concerned, it was a bit of a gift horse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I only desire to raise one question to which I shall be grateful to receive an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. As the Committee will appreciate, this Clause lays a duty upon every local educational authority, and upon the governing bodies,


etc., of schools. I am not clear from my knowledge of the Bill, such as it is, what is the sanction for the performance of this duty. What, in fact, happens if the local educational authority or other educational authorities do not carry out this duty? Usually in Bills of this sort, where a duty is laid down, a penal Clause is provided dealing with what happens in the case of a breach of that duty. I have not been able to find such a Clause in this Bill. Therefore, I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee, either that there is a penalty or that there is not. If there is not, this laying of a duty is largely bluff and eyewash. Are we being asked to impose a duty which can be enforced on those who are negligent in performing it, or are we simply putting in a phrase which may mean much or remarkably very little?

Mr. Isaacs: There is no penal authority, and it is not bluff nor eyewash. The fact is that it has been found in our country that, in the main, local authorities are only too willing to fall into line with the desires of the Central Government. There may be times when that does not always happen, but there is no necessity for a penal Section in an Act of Parliament calling upon local authorities to cooperate with the Government. I think the worst we could do with regard to a penal Clause would be to confine the men to barracks.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if he did not have this Clause in the Bill, the local authority to whom he went for information would be under a duty to refuse it because the information is private, and they ought not to disclose it to anybody—especially to the Government or for a public purpose—unless the State decides to lay a duty upon them to do so? That is why it is right to have the Clause and equally right not to have any sanction attached to it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would my right hon. Friend say if he accepts that statement, as it were, from the crypto-Front Bench?

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Major Milner. A great many of us have sat through many hours all night, and have endeavoured to do our best with this Bill in difficult circumstances. We have not always kept our temper, and I am afraid we have not always succeeded in

not being offensive, but do you not think, Sir, as a matter of Order, that when a Member has not shared those obligations and onerous duties with us he might, at any rate, try not to be offensive when he does speak?

The Chairman: I agree that Members have sat through the night, and, on the whole, the Sitting has been good tempered, but I deprecate the remark of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and hope he will assist in preserving the good temper of the Debate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of Order. I had not the slightest desire on this occasion to offend the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I did desire to invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that what may be a very good explanation of a Government Measure was being given not from the place where it should come—the Treasury Bench—but from an hon. Member who, however agreeable and distinguished, is not yet a Member of the Government. If you, Major Milner, or the hon. Member were in any degree offended by that expression, I shall be only too happy to withdraw it. The intention was not to draw attention to any criticism of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne if there was any criticism, it was on the Members of His Majesty's Government who had not succeeded in putting up anything like as good an explanation.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it be in Order if I asked the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. BoydCarpenter) to explain what he means by "crypto"? Is it a term of abuse?

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I rise to ask whether it is right for an hon. Member to draw a distinction between the rights of Members according to the particular periods of time which they have spent in the Chamber. It is rather a novel doctrine. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) whether he suggests—

The Chairman: That question really does not arise on the matter before the Committee.

Mr. C. Williams: I wish to ask the Government one question on this Clause concerning education authorities. In line 10, on page 7, it says:


It shall be the duty of every local education authority,
and line 17 contains similar words. We are seeking a great widening of educational institutions. There is a considerable amount of education of a technical kind, but I do not want to find later that those kinds of education are not covered by these words. For instance, I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to find that he is up against the Coal Board, who might say they refuse to give the information. Therefore, I ask for an assurance that all these kinds of education are covered by the words to which I have referred. Could he tell me that he has had the matter clearly considered by the legal authorities, so that the Attorney-General has been able to put his mind to it, as well as other hon. Members?

10.0 a.m.

Mr. Isaacs: The point is, what is meant by
school, or other educational institution"?
Please do not think I am being facetious when I say that it means "other educational institution." We shall have to consider whether they come within the scope of educational institutions. For example, a polytechnic with a variation of training classes, is an educational institution. We have to consider if the Ministry of Labour classes may be an educational institution. The purpose of drawing the Clause made is to see that educational institutions are brought within its scope.

Mr. C. Williams: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been helpful in this matter. I know that the Government are very weak on the legal side and they have not been helped in this matter by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I am not a lawyer and I wanted to be clear on the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Rights of employees called up for training.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purposes of any agreement relating to holidays with pay, the period during which employees are called up for training shall not he deemed a holiday.

This Amendment raises a matter of considerable importance and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not put his name to it. I do not know what the reasons may be, because I feel that he is in favour of the point raised by the Amendment. It cannot be argued that it is covered elsewhere in the Bill; at least I have not detected it if it is. The point raised by the Amendment ought to be somewhere in the Bill for the avoidance of doubt, if for no other reason
The object is to make sure that the training period of any national service man in the course of his part-time service shall not be in any circumstances counted as a holiday under any agreement relating to holidays with pay. It is desirable for the sake of clarity that that should be provided in the Statute. I am not sure, in view of what we have been told during this sitting as to the operations of this Measure, that the wording of the Bill is quite pertinent, because we have had such a wide variety of description of training. We have talked about annual camps, week-end camps and drills. One would not for a moment suggest that a week-end camp would come under the category of being a holiday for the purpose of a holiday with pay agreement. On the other hand, what one wants to provide is that where training in a camp is for eight days, 15, or even 21 days, it shall not be treated as a holiday with pay and that the part-time reservists shall not be penalised in that regard. I hope that even at this hour of the day I have made the point clear and that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will incorporate a provision to this effect in the Bill, if he is unable to accept this Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I only rise because I hope the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) might explain something in the Amendment which I did not understand when I read it, and to which he made no reference. I should have thought, if the principle was a good one—and I concede at once that it is a good one, and I share his hope that the Government will accept it—that it would have been equally good with regard to holidays as holidays, in any agreement as to holidays, whether with pay or without pay. In the form in which the Amendment is drawn, if an employee was outside the scope of an


agreement for holidays with pay but, nevertheless, had a contract with his employer for holidays without pay, to which he was entitled as part of his terms of service, he would be excluded from the benefit of this, and his 21 days might be eaten up without a holiday, and he would be in a very much worse position than if he had an agreement for holidays with pay.
A further point has arisen in regard to the obligation on the employer to pay wages during the period of such service. It is difficult to see how it could be holidays with pay in any event. I should have thought the principle was to make certain that the days for which he has to do this service are not counted for the satisfaction of any entitlement to holidays which he has under contract with his employer, whether paid or not.

Mr. Sorensen: I should like to support the intention of the Amendment, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that it is rather limited in its phraseology. In fact, the previous Amendment, which was not called—in page 8, line 35, after "contracts," to insert:
for the purpose of securing that such periods of training shall not be reckoned as holidays and.
—puts more succinctly and more definitely the intentions of some hon. Members on this side of the Committee. In order to make the position perfectly clear, I trust it will be made statutorily certain that in no circumstances will those who are called up for national service have to spend their holidays on that particular form of service and be denied what is their need and right. I hope we shall get an assurance, and a very firm assurance, on that from the Minister.

Mr. Isaacs: I have not the slightest hesitation in giving the Committee the firmest possible assurance that we shall take up the principle embodied in this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said he was a little surprised to find that my name was not associated with the Amendment. I take it he means my name as Minister. I am happy to say that, as the hon. and learned Member knows, my name was associated with the earliest agreement for holidays with pay that was ever made, and that was in the printing industry. I was, in fact, in

negotiation with the advisory council on this matter when these Amendments were put down on the Order Paper. Also, I could not put my name to either of these Amendments because they do not meet the Bill.
The point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is worth looking at, namely, that we ought to look at the question of holidays generally. The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. Wilkins)—in page 8, line 35, after "contracts," to insert:
For the purpose of securing that such periods of training shall not be reckoned as holidays and.
—also does not meet the point. I can give an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to see that men who by their work and wages—because holidays with pay is deferred wages; it is part of the general terms—have earned holidays, shall not have to take holidays as part of the training. Also we want to be fair to those many employers who for a long time past, when the Territorials were operating, gave their staffs a fortnight's holiday to perform their Territorial service, in addition to their summer holidays. We want to see that everybody is treated fairly. I give the assurance that we will endeavour to move an appropriate Amendment on the Report stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown:: (Bury St. Edmunds): Could the Minister say if it will be possible to put in the voluntary T.A, side in any form?

Mr. Isaacs: No. I will look at that, but it is rather placing a burden on industry, for which we have no responsibility. Of course, there are many who have done it. I should not like to give any assurance on that point, although we will certainly look at it.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Does that mean in substance that the employer will be compelled to pay the man called up during his training period?

Mr. Isaacs: He will have his Army pay.

Mr. Astor: I want to raise one point with regard to the Territorial Army. I know from experience that this holiday with the Territorial Army in camp is not the popular holiday it is supposed to be,


and in view of the fact that the Territorial training is going to be increasingly important in view of the curtailed period for conscripts, I hope the Minister will do all he can to get the Territorials that extra service in camp which will be of the greatest value.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I want to reinforce the points which have been made by my hon. Friends. All of us who were familiar with the Territorial Army before the war know that to a great extent its numbers were influenced by the difficult question of holidays every time we were training in camp. That happened simply because the Territorial Army before the war was composed largely of two main sections—what are known as black-coated workers whom enlightened employers paid while they were at camp in training, and the unemployed to whom that did not apply. I have vivid recollections of the difficulties of recruitment in the Territorial Army for this reason. I hope that the Minister will be able to pursue sympathetically the inquiries which are recommended to him in order that the Territorial Army in the future may escape some of the difficulties of the Territorial Army of the past.

Mr. Isaacs: There is some difference of opinion as to what we are trying to make this Bill cover—compulsory payment for the holiday or applying to the employer to do it. I raised this question with the Joint Industrial Council and the employers representatives agreed to recommend to their organisations to let the Territorial Army men do their training without any loss of their annual holiday. I am most anxious to see the Territorial Army succeed because I am a volunteer myself and also I am a member of a Territorial Army organisation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The interesting discussion which we have had on this Amendment shows what an important question is involved, and I am sure the Minister of Labour welcomes the suggestions that have come from both below the Gangway and from the other side of the Committee. Two questions appear to me to arise quite apart from the distinction between holidays with pay and training with the Army in camp. With regard to the volunteers in the Territorial Army, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will find great difficulties in

putting an obligation of this sort into the Bill and I welcome his assurance that he will go into the matter with the representatives of employers.
With regard to those who are Reservists under this Bill, whether those in the Territorial Army, the Army Reservists, the Royal Naval Special Reserves or the Auxiliary Air Forces, there ought to be a common rule that no matter what Reserves a man may be in, he should know what his actual position is. I suggest that there is the strongest case for putting that in the Bill in the clearest possible terms. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we could have an assurance that this will be included in the Bill. If he can do so I will welcome it. My observation that I regretted I did not see the right hon. Gentleman's name to this Amendment was due to the fact that there have been several Amendments raised from this side in the course of the Debate, which have been adopted sometimes without acknowledgement, which was done by an error, and I hoped that this one would not meet the same fate. If the right hon. Gentleman says that it will go in the Bill, then I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Isaacs: I can give the assurance that we shall have a Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, to leave out Subsections (2) to (4).
I ask the Committee to agree to leave out these Subsections because we shall submit a comprehensive new Clause to take their place.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask what is the reason for leaving out these Subsections. I have spent a considerable time in going through them, and, as far as I can see, they contain no defect. They are almost a model of draftsmanship, and now they are being thrown away without a word of explanation. When I say they are almost a model of draftsmanship, I would point out that they are almost a copy of the provisions of an Act passed by the Coalition Government. There is


really no difference in them, except n the penalties in connection with reinstatement. It is a little difficult to discuss this without mentioning the new Clause. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what is wrong with these Subsections, and why they have been dropped without any reasons being given. Has any frightful defect been discovered?

Mr. Isaacs: I was in very much the same dilemma as the right hon. and learned Member, as I, too, felt that I should be out of Order in discussing new Clauses. As far as Subsection (2) is concerned, we considered that the old Clause failed, because in it a man is liable to be called up for whole-time service, and we want to make some variation in the penalty. I will see that a statement in detail is made when we deal with this again at a later occasion, as it is difficult to do it at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14—(Early registration and calling up.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take together the first two Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the one to page 10, line 13, at end, add:
(2) This section shall come into force cn the passing of this Act.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I cannot take the three Amendments together, Major Milner, because the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has added his name to the last one, which he has adopted from us. Under Clause 14, as I read it, the right hon. Gentleman merely has power to make regulations providing that a person who wants to register before he is 17 years and six months can do so. We think that that power should be mandatory; that the right hon. Gentleman should make regulations to enable people to register younger than the normal age of registration if they so desire. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that,

because we think that there ought to be this power in particular cases.
The second Amendment—namely, in page 10, line 5, leave out "be allowed to" and insert "if he so desires"—which goes with the first one really deals with a small point. It will be seen in line 5 that provision is made whereby a person may be allowed to be called for service. I am not quite sure what the words "be allowed to" mean, but I suggest it ought to be at the option of the person concerned, and that, therefore, the insertion of the words "if he so desires" is preferable. What we want to achieve is that a person shall be allowed to register early if he so desires, and that the Minister must make regulations to provide for him doing that.

Mr. Ness Edwards: With regard to the first Amendment, it is the intention of the Minister to make these regulations. I do not know that there need be much ado about it. If it is pressed hard that we shall take "shall" instead of "may," we have no feelings about the matter. However, I want to give the Committee the assurance that the Minister will make regulations to provide for young men, who elect to do so, registering at the age of 17½. I think that meets the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.
With regard to the second Amendment, here the position is rather different. It is not only a question as to whether the young national serviceman shall be allowed, it is also a question of it not being abused. There must be a genuine reason. Therefore we feel that we ought not to accept the Amendment, because, if it is accepted, every young man who wants to do this, in no matter what circumstances, will be entitled to do it. If they are entitled to do it, it is quite possible that they will throw out of gear the various intakes. They will crowd camp quarters by an intake for which no provision has been made, and it is felt that this concession ought to be kept to cases in which there are some material grounds.
Let me give an example. A young man has taken matriculation and has a higher school certificate. He has to wait six months before getting into the University. He is17½. He feels he would like to register early and start his service at 17½, getting it done with, and going to the


university the next year. That is a perfectly reasonable case, and one for which provision is made within the terms of the Clause as drawn. But now let us take the opposite. If the Amendment is accepted, any young man, no matter what his circumstances, can, as I said before, have the option to go in. It is our view that this should be confined to cases in which there are some material reasons for it. We are not very concerned about the first Amendment, and, if the hon. Gentleman presses it, we will accept it. With regard to the second Amendment, as the students and young men in difficulties are amply provided for, I would ask the mover to withdraw it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have had some difficulty in following the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. Although I understand that, at the moment, we are not concerned with the first Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman referred to it, I would like to ask him why, if it is the Minister's intention in any case to make these regulations, the matter should not be made a statutory obligation upon them. It seems to me that there is a clear case for using the word "shall." If one is going to use the word "may," it is difficult to see when the word "shall" should be incorporated in an Act of Parliament at all. Perhaps we shall have the benefit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view on that.
On the second point, it seemed to me that the case put by the Minister would be precisely covered by the terms of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. The hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to me to overlook the words in line 2, to which, in fact, he made no reference. If my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is accepted, it is still incumbent upon the young man who wishes to antedate his period of military service to show that he has sufficient cause, and then he must show, which is no doubt easier, that he wants to do so. But he still has to show those two things. The Parliamentary Secretary argued that all he would have to do was to express a wish. That is not so. He has to express a wish, and make it precisely the sort of case to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in his illustration of a young man wishing to matriculate, and so· on. It seems to me, therefore, that this case is thoroughly

provided for by the Amendment. With respect, I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary's argument, in which he carefully omitted all' reference to the words "for sufficient cause," really meets the case put forward in this Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I agree with the interpretation of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). I will put it my own way by saying that the change of words proposed by this Amendment does not seem to me to raise the question which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary thought it raised. The Amendment only proposes to take out the words "be allowed to" and to substitute "if he so desires." That does not seem to raise the question which my hon. Friend thought it raised, in addition to the fact that the words "for sufficient cause" remain in line 2. It has also been overlooked that the word "may" remains in line 5.
10.30 a.m.
I would not have troubled the Committee merely to repeat a point which has already been made, but I want to take the argument a little further and tell my right hon. Friend that, for my part, if the change of wording had involved the grant to the man of an absolute option to be called up at 17 years and 6 months, I would see no reason against it. I thought that was what my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary were arguing on an earlier Amendment. It is true they did not refer to Clause 14, but to Clause 16. It is equally true that Clause 16 did not say so until it was amended by another Amendment. But, even so, I thought the principle for which he was contending, and the difference between this Bill and the National Service Act, was the substitution of the principle of personal option in this matter of the time of the call up, for the hardship point and the public interest point involved under existing legislation. I think the date ought to be later. I would have preferred that the call-up age should be 21 instead of 18, but the Committee has decided against me, and has decided that the dangers of the earlier date shall be overcome by giving a choice to the man to decide whether his service should be interrupted, or postponed, and, under Clause 14, whether it should be ante-dated. I think it would


be a good principle that the option should be his option. He should choose according to his own taste and convenience. The only interest of the State is that he shall perform his service. If he does perform it within certain limits of age laid down by the Measure, I can see no reason why he should not decide whether it should be 17 years 6 months, 18 years, or some time between 18 and the date when he finishes his apprenticeship period, or whether it should follow the completion of his apprenticeship. The State can have no great interest in the matter, and I would sooner leave it to the personal point of view of the man concerned.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I find myself very much convinced by the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). As I understand it, he would have supported these Amendments if they had gone a little further because, as he quite rightly explained, if the Amendments were carried even in their present form they would still leave these somewhat restrictive words. There would not be an absolutely free choice to the young man to decide whether he should do his service at 17½ years or not. I can see there may be a number of arguments from the Minister for leaving in some such words as "or sufficient cause," which our Amendments leave in. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the whole matter before the Report stage, because I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that, as far as possible, when we are introducing a Measure of this kind—which we all know in our hearts is putting, a great burden on the individuals concerned—we ought to do everything possible to keep the maximum degree of liberty consistent with the State's demands. We ought not to make the State a kind of grandmother to decide what a boy Should do. I would have preferred some words such as "the man, with the consent of his parent." I have much more confidence in the parent's love, affection and knowledge of the child, than in regulations and bureaucratic control.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the whole Clause in the light of this discussion, and see whether between now and the Report stage it would be possible, if not to follow quite on the lines of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, at least to give some indication that it shall be the right of the young

man, subject to the consent, advice and approval of his parent, to begin his service at that moment in his life which suits him and not at that moment which suits some educational or other authority which thinks it knows better than he and his family do about his own life and future.

Mr. Sorensen: The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has thought of a matter which was in my mind, and I am very glad he expounded it at some length. I am not a lawyer, nor versed in the law, but I imagine that the young man is still an infant in the eyes of the law and is subject to parental consent unless there is some statutory obligation over and above the parental authority. In this case, an option is given to the young man of 17½. There is no legal necessity that he should join the Services and carry out his service at 17½. If that be so, is there not a difficulty in regard to the decision of the young man and the authority of the parent or guardian? I ask the Minister to say a word on the point, not merely to avoid domestic conflict, but also because he may press this matter too far by thrusting the obligation on the young of the community before they are mature I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) when he suggested that the age of joining should be later than 18. But, as he says, we have decided that it should be 18. That seems to' me to be the lowest age to which we should go and I am extremely dubious about going still further in any indirect fashion. It might go to 16½, although, of course, legislation would then be required. I very much doubt whether a youngster of 17½ knows his own mind, although he may think he does. I hope this matter will receive further consideration and that an attempt still further to thrust responsibility on the immature will not be accepted. I hope the Minister will deal with the point I have raised—the position of the parent responsible for the boy at the time when, by law, he is called up far military service.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that he was prepared to make the regulations contemplated by this part of the Bill and, if pressed, to accept the first Amendment. My hon. Friends and I were more relieved to hear that because we had some doubt as to the Government's intentions by


reason of a certain curious fact. Whereas we now know that as from 1st January, 1949, arrangements will be made, subject to safeguards, for young men of I7½, if they so desire, to be called up, I understand that that is not the position at present. Because I believe this will be a helpful provision, I am gratified that it will be so after 1st January, 1949. But, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say why what is good for 1st January, 1949, is not good for 1st December, 1948?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) appreciates that the date of the operation of the Bill is some time ahead. To make general provisions retrospective for this special class and to make them later on for others, would be difficult.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The 17½ provision was put into effect during the war and it has been cancelled, and it is to be put into effect again. Surely, the argument does not arise in view of the fact that it was in effect during the war?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not quite certain about that. I should like to consider that point in conjunction with the other points that have been put. However, I should like the Committee to bear this in mind. The Committee has decided that 18 is the proper age for call-up. That is the general principle laid down in the Bill. In that, I think hon. Members were influenced my many types of considerations. There is the consideration of the immaturity of the young man under the age of 18; there is the question of the utility to the military Forces of a man under the age of 18. We feel it is right in certain cases to give this option, but it is not right to give a general option over the whole field and never know what the intake will be because of not knowing whether boys under 18 will elect to be called up before they are 18. We want to keep control over the whole position. We do not want it abused, and used for wrong motives. We do not want young men who want to escape parental control running into the Forces before the age of 18; we do not want domestic differences to be the cause of certain boys exercising this option. We want the option preserved for those cases where it is clearly to the advantage of the boy. I have no objection to exer-

cising the option for call-up at I7½ with the consent of the parents.

Mr. Sorensen: I am glad to hear the suggestion that it should be with the consent of the parents. Could the Parliamentary Secretary include some such words as that to make it perfectly clear?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This will be done in the regulations, which will come before the Committee. That will be the time for hon. Members to make absolutely certain that all these points are being met.

Mr. Sorensen: There is no necessity though.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Powers to make regulations provide for the position. In view of the general assurance I have given, that we will look at the matter in the light of the discussion, and as we have decided that 18 is the normal age of call-up—this arrangement will come into effect with the passing of the Bill—I hope the second Amendment we have been discussing will be withdrawn, when we shall reconsider it. The first Amendment, we accept.

Mr. S. Silverman: In what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the consent of the parents, I hope he was not intending to convey that the consent of parents would be made an essential condition of a grant of an application by the tribunal which would have to consider the matter. I am all in favour, as everybody must be, of taking into account every reasonable consideration. Of course, the views of parents are very important considerations, but they ought not to be allowed to be decisive. There might be a case in which there was a dispute between a boy of 17½ and his parents, in which the boy might conceivably be right, and it would be hard to deprive him of the choice which he might otherwise have merely because he is not six months older.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think it must be appreciated that all these details will be worked out in the regulations. The matter can be discussed and settled then. If hon. Members feel aggrieved at the form of the regulations they can take the necessary action. We shall examine everything that has been said and try to arrive at a proper conclusion in the interests of the boy, of the Service to which he is going,


and of the domestic life of the country, and not forgetting the interests of industry, too.

Mr. Nally: I feel that I must make this point. It appears to be assumed that there is general agreement that any provision which would allow a boy to take his service at 17½ years of age is a good thing. I think it is a thoroughly bad thing, and is likely to be dangerous. We have decided—or at least, it has been stated from the Government Front Bench—that it is proposed to send our conscripts overseas to Germany. I do not want to be melodramatic about it, but there are conditions in parts of Germany under which it is not desirable that groups of boys under 18 years of age should live. I think it is a thoroughly bad thing. Whilst it is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, that six months one way or the other do not make any difference, it might be equally true that six months under 17½ years of age, bringing it down to 17, would not make any difference.
The Committee as a whole has to be careful about any provision that is made with regard to the under 18s. I hope that some attention will be paid to the fact that all experience in Germany up to now—and I see no reason to believe that it will change greatly before 1949—confirms that one of the most tragic things that has happened in the American zone there is that all the older people have been removed and have been replaced by recruits with even less training than our boys will have when they get out there. The result has been disastrous and everyone who is interested is most concerned. I hope those doubts will be borne in mind when this matter is being considered.

10.45 a.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but it seems to me that the whole call-up would be thrown out of gear if the men who wanted to be called up at 17½ were allowed to be called up simply because they wanted to be. The operative words in the whole of this Clause are "for sufficient cause." There may be material reasons why the Minister should bear this in mind when there is any question of the call-up of those of 17½. If the Minister accepted the Amendments to this Clause I think it would strengthen the Clause.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Parliamentary Secretary has approached this problem in such a fashion as to disarm my determination, if I possess any determination at this late hour, for it is not as strong as it would be normally. However, we are satisfied in regard to the second Amendment that the Minister will look very carefully into the whole question. This does require careful consideration, and I would ask the Minister to resist the temptation into which some Members of this Committee, in my view, appear to have fallen imagining what good parents they would make of other people's children. The question to be considered here is to what extent the parents and their children can wisely determine that it would be to the child's advantage to be called up a little earlier. In some cases it might do harm; in other cases it would do no harm at all and it might be to the benefit of the individual. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will go into this matter very carefully, and I would ask him before the Report stage to put down something so that we will have ample time to study t. I understand that the Government propose accepting the first Amendment, and on the understanding that the other Amendment will be considered, I shall formally move it and then ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 10, line 5, to leave out "be allowed to," and to insert "if he so desires."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: I beg to move, in page 10, line 13, at the end, to add:
Provided that he shall be called up not later than three months from the date of registration.
This Amendment covers the same principle as is covered by another Amendment, standing in my name, in regard to the Third Schedule. It is devised to meet a difficulty felt by many conscripts under the present system. It has already been said that these young men, their parents and their employers should, as far as possible, know when they are to be called up, and when their period of service is likely to end. Under the present system, there is no guarantee that conscripts will be called up near to the time when they


become eligible. I have a number of cases of young men who have been waiting nine months under the present system to be called up, and during this time they have not been able to plan their future, find employment, or continue their educational careers. I need not waste the time of the Committee in reciting the details of their cases. I hope that the Minister will look at this sympathetically, and see if anything can be done to prevent the abuses which exist at the present time.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that we must resist this Amendment. We have much sympathy with what has been said, but under the powers given to the Minister in some of the Clauses which have already been carried, he can now start registration at 17 years and 2 months. We must have reasonable time in which to get the machinery to operate. As the registration is taking place at a much earlier date, we think that the forces will be able to take in the men at a much more normal flow. Now that the great unwind of mobilisation has all but come to an end, the administration is improving all the time. One need not anticipate that there will be the delays in calling up which there have been in the past.

Mr. Stephen: I rise to ask the Government what are their intentions. I should like to move to report Progress, as it is a long time since that was done. I think that the Committee are entitled to know the Government's plans for the rest of the day.

Mr. Wyatt: Are we to take it that discussion on the Amendment has now finished?

The Chairman: It certainly would be more convenient to dispose of the Amendment before raising any question of reporting Progress. We cannot take that step in the midst of a discussion on an Amendment.

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the usual practice that the Motion comes during a discussion on a Question? I am in your hands, Major Milner, and I am quite willing to defer moving to report Progress until a decision has been taken on the Amendment. Since the Opposition seem to have lost their capacity for opposition, I thought I would do it for them.

Mr. Wyatt: I want to say a few words in support of the Amendment. I should have thought this Amendment could well have been accepted by the Minister, as it would hardly cause any real inconvenience to his Department. On the other hand, it does give some guidance to the person who is going to be called up. Three months is, surely, an adequate time in which to make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. C. Williams: I hope that the two speeches to which we have just listened will not cause the Government to lapse on this matter, and give way. I think the Minister, if I may say so with respect, put his case with great force. I know that when the Government have a good case they generally run like blazes from it, and so I feel obliged, in trying to help them to get this Bill, to protest against any inclination on their part to give way on this Amendment. I regret that time should be wasted on such an Amendment.

Mr. Bramall: In view of the support the Government are receiving from the other side, I think it necessary to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes). It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that their constituents have suffered in the way he has described. The fact that the Clause deals with men of 17½ reinforces the position brought out by my hon. Friend. Young men will be left high and dry without jobs, and without prospects of being able to get jobs, because the machinery of the Ministry of Labour has not worked in sufficient time. I am certain my hon. Friend is not bound necessarily to this form of words in the Amendment. I do think that, in spite of the words spoken from the other side of the Committee, the Minister might take notice of the fact that the position is quite unsatisfactory at the present time.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I did not put the the strongest case possible against the Amendment, because I feel some sympathy with the intention behind it. What my hon. Friends must understand, and so must the Committee as a whole, is that if, under the regulations, a man is registered at 17 years and eight months, and if he is not called up within three months, his liability to national service under the


Amendment departs. At the same time, the Minister would not be entitled to call him up until he reached the age of 18. The Amendment would create a really ridiculous situation. It is administratively impossible and would result in losing men. It would result in a number not being called up because three months had elapsed or because the man was under 18.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: I am not in the least tied to this form of words. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong, because Clause 14 gives power to call up men before they are 18. I am putting forward the principle that there should be no undue delay in calling up a man when he has registered, whether he takes advantage of Clause 14 or not. I put the case very shortly though I could have taken up the time of the Committee in quoting hard cases of young men who, at present, are completely at a loose end, having been waiting for nine months or more and not knowing at what moment the call-up will fall upon them. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment, but I hope my hon. Friend will look at the principle sympathetically.

11 a.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Notwithstanding the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary—and I think it was a good technical reply to the actual form of the Amendment—there is a point of substance here, and I hope he will give an assurance that it will be dealt with on the Report stage.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As I said I had great sympathy with the intention of the Amendment, I thought that would have conveyed to my hon. Friend that we will look at this and see if we can tighten it up to avoid unnecessary delays.

Mr. Hughes: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have had a long and busy Sitting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] We have made some progress but not as much as we would have desired. I have had the advantage of discussing the matter with the Leader of the House, and I recommend the Committee now that we should move to report Progress, on the understanding

that—perhaps with some extra time given to the further consideration of the Bill tomorrow, as well as the rest of the new Sitting today—we will get the assistance of the Committee in completing this stage of the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: At an earlier stage, I was in favour, and I said so, of reporting Progress because I thought the conditions then were not conducive to a really constructive examination of the Bill. but things have improved since then. We have had a very useful morning's work, we are making very good progress, there is no sign of any obstruction from any part of the Committee. I think the Ministers would agree that we are doing very well and are co-operating very well. I wonder what possible advantage is to be gained by stopping now. We have lost the Standing Committees in any case. There is nothing we can do about it, and if we adjourn now—[Interruption]. Seriously, if we adjourn the discussion now, the only possible effect is to do without the three hours that we might usefully spend now, only to add them on at midnight tonight, and perhaps have another all-night Sitting. I submit that this is not a useful moment to adjourn the discussion. We are all here, we are quite fresh, we are doing very well, we are getting on quite nicely. Why in the world should we not go on? It may be that by halfpast two we shall have finished the Committee stage of the Bill altogether and, if not, another hour might see the end of it. If we do what is now suggested and adjourn the House, none of us can go to bed at this time of day. It would not be worth it because we would have to come back early in the afternoon, and the three hours or so of the new Parliamentary day would be completely wasted. I can see no point in it, and I think it would be much better to go on with it and get it completed.

Mr. Stephen: I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I have been a long time in the House, and I must say I cannot remember any occasion when we have had more confused leadership in connection with Business than on this occasion. We have made a good amount of progress during the last few hours. I do not know whether the reason for that was because the leadership was in different hands. Having made this


good progress, the Minister of Defence now comes along with a Motion to report Progress, and informs us that he has had the advantage of a consultation with the Leader of the House. I might be willing to accept the Motion if the Leader of the House were here to give us his sage counsel on the matter. Having nearly worn ourselves out, owing to the fact that some of the Service Ministers could not make up their own minds, we are now asked to agree to the Motion to report Progress, on the understanding that we should give the Government an assurance that they shall have the Bill by Friday. Why should I sit through the night in opposition to this Bill, merely to be asked now to give an assurance that the Government can have it by Friday?
In my opinion, the Minister of Defence would be much better advised to carry on with the Business. Hon. Members would be more willing and more capable of discussing the Bill now than they would if they had to sit through another night. I realise, of course, that if things develop during the course of today, as they developed yesterday and through the night, it might still be necessary to have another night Sitting. I hope that the Government will think again on this matter, and that the Service Ministers will show a little more comprehension of their own Bill. If they do that, I have no doubt that they will get the Committee stage nicely finished by this evening, with the Business having been done in an orderly way, and while there is still daylight. It would mean that we should not have to spend another miserable night in these uncomfortable surroundings amid all the litter such is now on the Floor, and which is possibly emblematic of the mental condition of some hon. Members. If we now report Progress and resume at 4 o'clock and continue till about 11 o'clock, and then, after that, have to go on again through the night, the mental condition of hon. Members will make it quite impossible for us to do justice to this miserable Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of Defence will withdraw his Motion.

Mr. Stanley: I hope I shall not give offence to hon. Members opposite if I rise to support their Minister. I rise at this moment because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was unlikely to get the aid which he so much desires. If it were

possible for me to be surprised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), I would have been surprised by the speech which he has just made, because only five minutes ago I hurried to the Committee, having heard a rumour, which I believed to be accurate, that the hon. Member was in the process of moving to report Progress.

Mr. Stephen: I thought the right hon. Gentleman had been long enough in the House of Commons to know that a Motion to report Progress is the method of interrupting Business to ask what the Government intend to do. I asked the leave of the Committee to do so. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that.

Mr. Stanley: I must confess that in the last year or two I have moved to report Progress quite a number of times.

Mr. Stephen: The right hon. Gentleman did not know why he was doing it.

Mr. Stanley: I did it with the intention that Progress should be reported. I shall know better in future. When I hear the hon. Member for Camlachie rising to move a Motion of any kind, I shall know it is because he wants exactly the opposite to happen. The hon. Member gave the most cogent reason for accepting this Motion when he referred to the tired Minister opposite. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is tired; he will be more and more tired as the day progresses, and so will his colleagues. We are discussing a most important Bill, and I do not think it is right that we should go on discussing a Bill of this kind with Ministers getting more and more tired. In the end, if we sit, as hon. Members say now they would like to sit, right on through the afternoon, through the evening and the night, right on to Friday without any interval at all, I do not think the country will be getting what it ought to get from the discussion of this Measure. Although the interval before we should resume would be a short one, Ministers and the rest of us should have that opportunity for rest and refreshment, and, if I might say so, as far as the Ministers are concerned, not only the material refreshment that I shall seek, but they might spend part of the time in refreshing their minds on the part of the Bill which still remains to be discussed. The learned Attorney-General, for instance, might look


up the law on which, some hours ago, he quarrelled with the Secretary of State for War. [Interruption.] I gather it is all settled now. All my hon. Friends on this side will support this Motion in the belief that, in doing so, we are likely to return to the Bill with a better chance of doing it justice, and of doing justice to our constiuents, to whom this Bill is a matter of vital interest.
I only want to make it plain that there is no bargain that we should end this Bill by any particular time. We on this side believe that if we sit this evening and tomorrow it can be done, but when I see serried ranks of the Government supporters rising in opposition to the Government, not only on every Amendment but even on the Motion to report Progress, it is clear that no one on this side is going to commit himself to finishing this Bill today, tomorrow, or, indeed, at any time. All we can say is that if we report Progress now as far as we are concerned, if there are no dilatory tactics on the other side, we believe it should be possible to complete the Bill and at the same time give it fair consideration.

11.15 a.m.

Wing-Commander Millington: This is not a party matter, and not even a matter for those who have disagreements inside their parties. It seems to me that it is a House of Commons question as to the best manner in which we can advance the Committee stage of the Bill. I have listened to the right hon. Gentle; man, who has managed to maintain his skill and grasp since last night right into the mid hours of today. The position seems to be that those of us who have sat solidly throughout the whole tirne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stolidly."]—solidly, or stolidly, whatever hon. Members like—have done our best to assist in shaping this legislation and we want to go on with the job whilst we are feeling at our fittest to do that job. The question I want to ask the Government is this: if we adjourn our deliberations until the beginning of the next Parliamentary day, are we in fact, by voting for this Motion, leaving it open to ourselves to go on working all tonight? If we are making it open to ourselves to go on working all tonight, there is every reason, I submit, why we should reject the Motion and use the next three or four hours to make progress.
There is another point of interest. The task of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench has been one which we have seen has been very much shared. I believe the Attorney-General, for example, did have some period of duty while the night shift came on. There has not been a totally "one-man burden" on any Minister on the Front Bench. From the performances we have had latterly, I think it can be hoped as far as back benchers are concerned that those who have had eight or 10 hours' sleep will be able to carry on. I hope we shall reject the Motion and get on with the Bill.

Mr. Byers: I do not consider that it matters whether we adjourn now, or not.—[Laughter.]—This is a very serious point. I consider that the damage was done when we decided to go on after midnight. No matter whether we adjourn now, or not, this Committee is going to be tired for the rest of the day. I want to register a protest against a great constitutional Measure like this being driven through in an all-night Sitting with the result that the Committee must inevitably be tired whether we adjourn now, or not. I protest that the Government should have the impertinence to ask the country to accept a Measure like this after its consideration by a very tired Committee. The Government ought to allot more Parliamentary time to the Bill. What I want is, another two or three days allotted to this Measure next week. Unless that is done the country can complain that the Bill has not been discussed properly and adequately by those whose duty it is to do the job. This point ought to be taken seriously by the Government, and this Committee, in its tired and weary state, should not be asked to go on with this Bill.

Mr. Nally: We had discussions among ourselves several hours ago as to whether it would be better for the Committee in general to report Progress. We have now reached the stage, at 1I.20 a.m., when the proposal is simply that we shah adjourn for two or three hours. If, in that period, there was time for hon. Members to go home and go to bed, all well and good. But that is not so. It will not be a rest. There is another point, which is pretty well known. After all-night: shows it is true that with the dawn we feel the touch of death. But after the dawn comes the second light, and there


is now a much better temper in the Committee than there was several hours ago. In that happy atmosphere, let us proceed for the next two or three hours. It must also be borne in mind that hon. Members can answer only for themselves in what will happen in our discussions. If we take three hours off now, not to go to rest but simply to go and pass the time in some other part of the building, it will probably be added at the other end. Therefore, having gone through the whole of the night it seems logical to proceed about our business, as I thought was agreed generally much earlier this morning.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I should like to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally). The only virtue in a Motion to report Progress now is that we do not sit again this afternoon, otherwise it is entirely valueless. During the night we have seen Ministers floundering through this Bill, and unable to explain provisions in it. We have seen it is a hastily drafted Bill, which Ministers have not been able to explain. We saw that at six o'clock, when we gave the Ministers an opportunity to rise. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) suggested that if this Motion is accepted, we should not sit again today but should have two days next week. I go one better. If we rise now, the Government should take this Bill away, and scrap it and think over the whole matter again.

Mr. S. Silverman: I only trouble the Committee a second time because I want to dissociate myself from those hon. Members who have been good enough to support my proposal but have coupled with it attacks upon the Government and upon the leadership of the House, with which I do not wish to be associated, and in which I do not share. My opposition to the Motion to report Progress is based on purely practical and, I hope, constructive grounds. I am not trying to score points against or for anybody. It seems to me that on every practical ground, the Committee would be making the best use of its time by continuing now, and not by stopping. I can see no advantage in stopping, unless it is to be adjourned until next week. I understand that is not the proposal, and I would not make such a proposal. Since we do want to go on to-

day and get the thing finished it seems to me an almost tragic waste of time to adjourn at 11.20 a.m.

Mr. James Hudson: During the night I made my protest about the continuance of the Sitting to the point which we have now reached. I am, therefore, in a better position to do what I am sure the Government would not expect me to do, and certainly do not deserve, namely, to support them. The people who have suffered most from the process through which we passed last night were the Government themselves. We had an exhibition which I do not want to say too much about, but it was an exhibition of disagreement, of tiredness and of inefficiency. Indeed, I am being charitable to the Government and it will be a good reason for not attempting again tonight what has been done on this occasion. I cannot get any undertaking about what will happen tonight, but if we have to suffer again as we did on this occasion, it will be a very grave defect from our point of view—and I am not bothering about the other side now. So I hope the Government will carefully consider what happened last night before they take any further steps in regard to this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — BURMA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS)

11.30 a.m.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd May].
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, as applied by Section 1 (2) of the Government of Burma (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, praying that the Government of Burma (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Question put, and agreed to

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision for planning the development and use of land it is expedient to authorise the payment out of


moneys provided by Parliament of the following' expenditure:

(1) Any increase in the compensation payable by the Crown under any Act which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) amending the law relating to the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land;
(b) repealing enactments providing for the assessment of compensation, other than compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, in, accordance with the provisions of Section fifty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944,

including any increase which is attributable as aforesaid in the sums payable into the Road Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of expenses of the Minister of Transport;
(2) Any sums required by any Minister for making contributions to local authorities towards compensation paid by them in respect of decisions or orders under the said Act of the present Session, being decisions or orders given or made wholly or partly in the interests of a public service the cost of which is defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament;
(3) Any sums required by the Minister of Town and Country Planning for the payment of grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by those authorities in taking any action under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the discontinuance of uses of land or the alteration or removal of buildings or works;

and the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenses incurred in connection with the repayment of stock issued under the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to Scotland for planning the development and use of land it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the following expenditure:

(1) Any increase in the compensation payable by the Crown under any Act which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) amending the law relating to the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land;
(b) repealing enactments providing for the assessment of compensation, other than compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, in accordance with the provisions of Section fifty-three of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945,


including any increase which is attributable as aforesaid in the sums payable into the Road Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of expenses of the Minister of Transport;
(2) Any sums required by any Minister for making contributions to local authorities towards compensation paid by them in respect of decisions or orders under the said Act of the present Session, being decisions or orders given or made wholly or partly in the interests of a public service the cost of which is defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament;
(3) Any sums required by the Secretary of State for the payment of grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by those authorities in taking any action under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the discontinuance of uses of land or the alteration or removal of buildings or works;

and the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenses incurred in connection with the repayment of stock issued under the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION BILLS

Ordered:
That the Lords Message [25th April] communicating the Resolution, 'That it is desirable that in the present Session all Consolidation Bills and all Bills for re-enacting in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of an existing Statute be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be considered."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.33 a.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask someone to give a short explanation of what this is all about. We ought not to take everything "on the nod."

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It is very unfair of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to come here, all fresh, to raise this point this morning, when we have been here all night trying to carry on the Business of the day. I am surprised that one so well acquainted with the Procedure of this House should be so ignorant of this particular matter.

Mr. Williams: I am not ignorant.

Mr. Ede: I know that the hon. Member is not ignorant of the matter, and therefore nothing I have to say will be any revela-


tion to him. When there is a Consolidation Bill which puts existing Statutes dealing with a particular subject relating to England, Wales or Scotland into one Measure, for the convenience of those who have to administer the law, it is usual for a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons to be set up so that the new Bill can be examined to see that it is a Consolidation Measure and does not introduce by a subterfuge any new principle or practice into law. That appears to me to be a very convenient arrangement. It enables this work to be done with reasonable expedition. It is not new legislation. This method has great advantages for the people who have to read and to administer the law. This Resolution from another place indicates that they are desirous that such a Committee should be set up to deal with certain Measures relating to Scotland. I hesitate to speak on any legislative matters which are concerned with Scotland alone, and I am therefore greatly relieved that the detailed work on this Measure will be done by a Joint Committee who can refer to us the results of their deliberations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Lords Message [1st May] relating to the appointment of a Committee on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords] considered.

Ordered:
That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committe appointed by the Lords to consider the Local Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords]:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
That Three be the Quorum."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Sir William Darling, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Gilzean, Mr. Janner, Mr. John Paton and Mr. Timmons be Members of the Committee."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.35 a.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Why are English Members, and not more Scottish Members, appointed to this Com-

mittee, which is to deal with purely Scottish affairs?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It is not unusual for English Members to serve on Committees dealing with Scottish matters, or for Scottish Members. to serve on Committees on Measures dealing with England. I, myself, in the first six months that I was a Member of the House, was appointed to serve on the Scottish Grand Committee. I recollect once rising to address that Committee, but my effort to assist my hon. Friends from beyond the Tweed was not received in the spirit in which I was prepared to tender it. This legislation, when passed, will be legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. English Members have to take their responsibility for legislation that has to be administered in Scotland, just as Scottish Members have to take their responsibility for Measures that are concerned with England and Wales only. There are innumerable precedents—I have quoted myself as a horrible example—for English Members taking a friendly and sympathtic interest in affairs beyond the Border. I hope that while the United Kingdom Parliament endures that friendly reciprocity of interest will continue.

Mr. Carmichael: rose—

Mr. James Callaghan: Where was the hon. Member last night?

11.38 a.m.

Mr. Carmichael: It is because of my Scottish birth that I look so very much fresher than hon. Members from England and Wales, but I have been here all night. Earlier, in the discussion on the National Service Bill, I objected to the imposition of certain things on the Scottish people. I want to ask the House now, is it unreasonable to suggest that, on a Committee which is to deal with local government in Scotland, we are entitled to feel some resentment—not at the presence of English Members on the Committee—but at the fact that there are not more Scotsmen in the membership of the Committee? There is a very real feeling in Scotland today, as a result of some of the Measures passed here, that local government administration is


being taken out of the hands of the local authorities and being vested in the Secretary of State. Surely, in a matter affecting Scottish local government, Members for Scottish Divisions should be consulted? I say that with some experience of local government. Not only are we putting people on the Committee who do not understand the conditions in Scotland, but people who have not been associated with local government of any kind. I submit that that is a point which might be considered by the House. I know that at this hour—I do not know whether to call it a late or an early hour—there is little chance of the Home Secretary giving way. He himself admitted that he was glad not to be called upon to accept responsibility for examining this Measure. Therefore, on behalf of the Scottish Members, irrespective of party, and on behalf of the local governments of Scotland, I lodge my protest against the appointment of a committee that does not understand the position in Scotland or the local government machinery of Scotland.

11.41 a.m.

Mr. Stephen: May I also make an appeal to the Home Secretary not to press this Motion? I do so because this is a matter closely affecting Scotland. I would like to ask your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before I say anything further as to whether this is exempted Business.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): This is exempted Business and, therefore, the House is in Order in taking it. I should point out, however, that the House has already agreed to set up a Committee, and the only question now is as to whether objection is taken to any member of this proposed Committee. Members up to Mr. Paton have already been approved, so his selection and that of Mr. Timmons are the only questions now outstanding.

Mr. Stephen: I have taken exception to that for this reason, that the Scottish Grand Committee is in Session now. The proposed Committee is to deal with local Scottish affairs in a way different from the way in which the Scottish Grand Committee deals with legislation affecting Scotland. The Home Secretary has said that Scottish Members are on English Committees, but not often on Committees which deal only with English local government. I suggest to the Home Secretary,

in view of the fact that the Scottish Members are downstairs meeting in the Scottish Grand Committee now, and that one side of the Committee has already taken a decision to ask for an Adjournment because of the business here, that he should not proceed with the appointment of this committee.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I ask the Home Secretary, on behalf of some of my hon. Friends in Scotland, not to force this Motion. This has been raised by a very representative Scotsman who holds a high position in the esteem of the party opposite, and I would ask if it would not be better if this should be done at some time when the Scottish Members can attend and express their views. I think we ought to proceed with great caution. May I warn hon. Gentlemen that they may be setting a precedent. I can remember an occasion when I had some small difference with a Whip, I will not say on which side, and, before I was much older, I found myself on the Scottish Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghanrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not empowered to accept that Motion.

Mr. Callaghan: We have been sitting here for 20 or 21 hours—

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member should not challenge my Ruling. I have already said that I am not empowered to accept his Motion at the moment.

Mr. Callaghan: We are just wasting time.

Dr. Stephen Taylor: There is one thing which may bring this discussion to a close. The hon. Member under discussion is, in fact, a Scotsman.

Question put, and agreed to.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act,


1932, to the Urban District of Bletchley, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Castleford, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 5 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 5932, to the Borough of Cleethorpes, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 5932, to the Urban District of Epping, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th May, be approved

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act. 1932, to the County Borough of Newport, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th May. be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Wellingborough a copy of which Order was presented on 5th May, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes to Twelve noon.